On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 1:17 PM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2019-02-19 16:59:35 +0100, Magnus Hagander 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). > > There's decent iSCSI implementations in several kernels, without the NFS > problems. I'm not sure what we'd gain by reimplementing those?
Is that a new thing? I ran across PostgreSQL-over-iSCSI a number of years ago and the evidence strongly suggested that it did not reliably report disk errors back to PostgreSQL, leading to corruption. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
