Re: [sqlite] Potential bug: Database on gvfs mount cannot be committed to

2016-09-18 Thread Simon Slavin
On 19 Sep 2016, at 2:52am, Keith Medcalf wrote: > That is to say there is no difference between a block device (such as a > physical hard disk) attached to the computer via a 1 foot SCSI cable and an > iSCSI LUN where the iSCSI block device is located on a different

Re: [sqlite] Potential bug: Database on gvfs mount cannot be committed to

2016-09-18 Thread Keith Medcalf
No database server product of which I am aware will "work" properly when the database resides on a remote filesystem. There is a *vast* difference between a "remote file system" and a "local file system on a remote block device". There is no difference between a "remote block device" known as

Re: [sqlite] Potential bug: Database on gvfs mount cannot be committed to

2016-09-18 Thread Stephen Chrzanowski
"snapshotable" or not, DBs are accessed from the local file system, not from a network where another OS has control of the file system. On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > * R. Smith: > > > Enterprise DBs have servers on the same machine as the Files

Re: [sqlite] Potential bug: Database on gvfs mount cannot be committed to

2016-09-18 Thread Florian Weimer
* R. Smith: > Enterprise DBs have servers on the same machine as the Files they > access, they do not actually use the network file-system to access the > DB data-files over the network from multiple clients, or even servers > (unless the DBs are partitioned so and ONLY accessed by the single >