top | item 39620719

(no title)

kapperchino | 2 years ago

Because you can’t scale out just the cache part of Postgres, one machine can only have so much memory

discuss

order

10000truths|2 years ago

If 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|2 years ago

Either 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?