On 11 Aug 2003 at 23:42, Ron Johnson wrote:
On Mon, 2003-08-11 at 19:50, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
Well, yeah. But given the Linux propensity for introducing major features in "minor" releases (and thereby introducing all the attendant bugs), I'd think twice about using _any_ Linux feature until it's been through a major version (e.g. things introduced in 2.4.x won't really be stable until 2.6.x) -- and even there one is taking a risk.
Dudes, seriously - switch to FreeBSD :P
But, like, we want a *good* OS... 8-0
Joke aside, I guess since postgresql is pretty much reliant on file system for basic file functionality, I guess it's time to test Linux 2.6 and compare it.
And don't forget, for large databases, there is still XFS out there which is probably the ruler at upper end..
This is going to push the whole thing a little off-topic, but I'm curious to know the answer.
Has it ever been proposed or attemped to run PostgreSQL without any filesystem (or any other database for that matter ...).
Meaning ... just tell it a raw partition to keep the data on and Postgre would create its own "filesystem" ... obviously, doing that would allow Postgre to bypass all the failings of all filesystems and rely entirely apon its own rules.
Or are modern filesystems advanced enough that doing something like that would lose more than it would gain?
Just thinking out loud.
-- Bill Moran Potential Technologies http://www.potentialtech.com
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster