On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 1:17 PM Andres Freund <andres@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