On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 10:59 AM Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> wrote: > The only case I've run into people wanting to use postgres on NFS, the NFS > server is a big filer from netapp or hitachi or whomever. And you're not > going to be able to run something like that on top of it.
Yeah. :-( It seems, however, we have no way of knowing to what extent that big filer actually implements the latest NFS specs and does so correctly. And if it doesn't, and data goes down the tubes, people are going to blame PostgreSQL, not the big filer, either because they really believe we ought to be able to handle it, or because they know that filing a trouble ticket with NetApp isn't likely to provoke any sort of swift response. If PostgreSQL itself is speaking NFS, we might at least have a little more information about what behavior the filer claims to implement, but even then it could easily be "lying." And if we're just seeing it as a filesystem mount, then we're just ... flying blind. > There might be a use-case for the split that you mention, absolutely, but > it's not going to solve the people-who-want-NFS situation. You'd solve more > of that by having the middle layer speak "raw device" underneath and be able > to sit on top of things like iSCSI (yes, really). Not sure I follow this part. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
