[TwoPhonesOneKid]

Typically the SQL engine will allow flexibility on this. Not all transactions need to prioritize write-to-disk confirmation over throughput. If you're collecting observability metrics, for instance, these don't have the same data coherency constraints your app model (account etc) demand. In this case you can accept the logical commit and the tiny chance it might not actually hit the disk. Postgres at least allows customizing this per transaction, I believe, although I'm not quite sure how it works if you compose transactions with distinct syncrhonization constraints.

[anonymars]

Sure, but the comment I responded to was lamenting that the commits are not asynchronous by default. The documentation I linked to was all about the considerations and behavior for asynchronous commits.

[TwoPhonesOneKid]

I see this understanding that sql databases should do xyz by default as corporate dogmatism, kind of. A database is only as useful as it's used! I realize you haven't argued for this, but if we're collectively claiming postgres can handle 100% of the persistent database needs of an arbitrary app (a very common claim these days), we also need to accept that people will "abuse" sql databases to prioritize accessibility over coherency, which was always a major draw of NoSQL engines. I suspect most consumer apps can scale with some form of inconsistency just fine, even if this creates a PR rats-nest, but consumers are far more forgiving of incompetency than greediness. This is a very much an "understand your market" sort of decision to make.

So I see what you're saying, but I'd also like more async bindings that lean into customizing the behavior at query- or execution-time. You can build them today but you have to work around whatever sql-binding framework you use and it will still likely result in leaky abstractions.

[marsovo]

I see what you mean, but ACID is a fairly foundational expectation for SQL transactions (D being the relevant feature here)

That being said, my background is primarily Microsoft SQL more than Postgres. As such I'm occasionally bemused at the sort-of monoculture here around Postgres, where if Postgres doesn't have it, it may as well not exist*.

And so it is in this case (the DELAYED_DURABILITY documentation I linked above). Alas, this doesn't seem to be something I see in standard SQL, so indeed, as you say, it's too bad that the standard doesn't provide for relaxing the rules.

Relatedly, the other interesting thing is the chatter about fsync. I know on Windows that's not the mechanism that's used, and out of curiosity I looked deeper into what MS-SQL does on Linux, and indeed they were able to get significant improvement by leveraging similar mechanisms to ensure the data is hardened to disk without a separate flush (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43443703). They contributed to kernel 4.18 to make it happen.

> The repeated use of a write request followed by a flush request may be detrimental to performance and will increase traffic on the I/O bus.

> Prior to the Linux Kernel 4.18 updates, Linux could use Fua but only for the file system journaling writes and not data writes.

> If your system supports Fua and you have the Linux Kernel 4.18 or newer updates, you can enable SQL Server trace flag -T3979 and use /opt/mssql/bin/mssql-conf set control.alternatewritethrough 0. SQL Server will use Fua write behavior patterns instead of Forced Flush. File systems supporting optimized Fua align SQL Server on Linux with SQL Server on Windows behavior and performance.

*I think performance of CTEs/Views is another topic where I noticed it, where it was just taken as given that they can hurt performance, whereas in T-SQL they are simply equivalent to subqueries

[anarazel]

> As such I'm occasionally bemused at the sort-of monoculture here around Postgres, where if Postgres doesn't have it, it may as well not exist.

FWIW, I, as a medium-long term PG developer, are also regularly ... bemused by that attitude. We do some stuff well, but we also do a lot of shit not so well, and PG is succeeding despite that, not because of.

> Relatedly, the other interesting thing is the chatter about fsync. I know on Windows that's not the mechanism that's used, and out of curiosity I looked deeper into what MS-SQL does on Linux, and indeed they were able to get significant improvement by leveraging similar mechanisms to ensure the data is hardened to disk without a separate flush (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43443703). They contributed to kernel 4.18 to make it happen.

Case in point about "we also do a lot of shit not so well" - you can actually get WAL writes utilizing FUA out of postgres, but it's advisable only under somewhat limited circumstances:

Most filesystems are only going to use FUA writes with O_DIRECT. The problem is that for streaming replication PG currently reads back the WAL from the filesystem. So from a performance POV it's not great to use FUA writes, because that then triggers read IO. And some filesystems have, uhm, somewhat odd behaviour if you mix buffered and unbuffered IO.

Another fun angle around this is that some SSDs have *absurdly* slow FUA writes. Many Samsung SSDs, in particular, have FUA write performance 2-3x slower than their already bad whole-cache-flush performance - and it's not even just client and prosumer drives, it's some of the more lightweight enterprise-y drives too.

Edit: fights with HN formatting.