5 ms·
Because you can’t scale out just the cache part of Postgres, one machine can only have so much memory
by kapperchino 3y ago
Because you can’t scale out just the cache part of Postgres, one machine can only have so much memory
- 10000truths 3y agoIf you have a second machine, why not just put a Postgres read replica on it? Letting the WAL deal with replica consistency is much simpler than making the client responsible for keeping an external cache in sync, and you get the benefit of keeping everything in Postgres.
- dpedu 3y agoEither I pay a performance penalty waiting for my cache entry to be synced to the replica, or I risk reading stale data from the replica, no?