I can see that the author put some considerable time into testing and writing the article, but nobody in the business of deploying production Posgresql should ever have been using the various models of desktop SSD that were tested. This is because the subject of which SSD are reliable has come up repeatedly on the PG mailing lists. Several heavy PG users and developers have already done testing and the universally accepted advice in that forum, for years, has been to never ever use a drive that lacks power fail protection.<p>Disclosure: we run Postgresql in production on Intel and Samsung &quot;data center grade&quot; SSDs, and I participated in the aforementioned PG mailing list discussions.<p>Updated: from <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.postgresql.org&#x2F;docs&#x2F;9.4&#x2F;static&#x2F;wal-reliability.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.postgresql.org&#x2F;docs&#x2F;9.4&#x2F;static&#x2F;wal-reliability.ht...</a><p>&quot;Many solid-state drives (SSD) also have volatile write-back caches.&quot;<p>and this thread:
<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.postgresql.org&#x2F;message-id&#x2F;533F405F.2050106@benjamindsmith.com" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.postgresql.org&#x2F;message-id&#x2F;533F405F.2050106@benjam...</a><p>and
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=6973179" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=6973179</a>