On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 5:33 PM Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > On 2/19/19 5:20 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 10:59 AM Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> > wrote: > > >> 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. > > > > I think Magnus says that people running PostgreSQL on NFS generally > don't do that because they somehow chose NFS, but because that's what > their company uses for network storage. Even if we support the custom > block protocol, they probably won't be able to use it. > Yes, with the addition that they also often export iSCSI endpoints today, so if we wanted to sit on top of something that could also work. But not sit on top of a custom block protocol we invent ourselves. -- Magnus Hagander Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/> Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>
