On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> The traditional standard is that the filesystem is supposed to take >>> care of its own metadata, and even Linux filesystems have pretty much >>> figured that out. I don't really see a need for us to be nursemaiding >>> the filesystem. At most there's a documentation issue here, ie, we >>> ought to be more explicit about which filesystems and which mount >>> options we recommend. >> >> I think it would be illuminating to shine upon this conversation the >> light of some actual facts, as to whether or not this can be >> demonstrated to be broken on systems people actually use, and to what >> extent it can be mitigated by the sorts of configuration choices you >> mention. Neither Simon's comments nor yours give me any clear feeling >> as to how likely this is to cause problems for real users, nor how >> easily those problems can be mitigated. > > If you have some actual facts yourself, add them. Or listen for people that > do.
Since I don't have any actual facts, listening for people who do is precisely what I am doing. Since the proposed change was your suggestion, perhaps you would like to provide some. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
