Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> 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[1].
>>>
>>>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