Обсуждение: Re: [HACKERS] Tablespaces
> I'm ruferring to NTFS and the win32 platforms. How does tar handle these > symlinks on the NTFS filesystem? What about if someone finds that FAT32 > is significantly better for the database? FAT32 is not a journaling filesystem and has no security features and is not suitable for databases, period. Microsoft NT setup disks do not even allow FAT32 to be installed on disks over a certain size for the boot partition. PostgreSQL relies on standard features of the POSIX system, not on O/S attributes. AFAIK, win32 is the only non POSIX API supported by the PosgreSQL developers. If Microsoft's non POSIX compliance bothers you, install Interix, which provides POSIX for win32 (including symlinks). Or, use the linking option provided by the good folks who are doing the native port. Merlin
Merlin Moncure wrote: > > I'm ruferring to NTFS and the win32 platforms. How does tar handle > these > > symlinks on the NTFS filesystem? What about if someone finds that > FAT32 > > is significantly better for the database? > > FAT32 is not a journaling filesystem and has no security features and is > not suitable for databases, period. Microsoft NT setup disks do not > even allow FAT32 to be installed on disks over a certain size for the > boot partition. > > PostgreSQL relies on standard features of the POSIX system, not on O/S > attributes. AFAIK, win32 is the only non POSIX API supported by the > PosgreSQL developers. If Microsoft's non POSIX compliance bothers you, > install Interix, which provides POSIX for win32 (including symlinks). > Or, use the linking option provided by the good folks who are doing the > native port. Symlinks have too many advantages on most platforms to use anything else. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Merlin Moncure wrote: >>I'm ruferring to NTFS and the win32 platforms. How does tar handle >> >> >these > > >>symlinks on the NTFS filesystem? What about if someone finds that >> >> >FAT32 > > >>is significantly better for the database? >> >> > >FAT32 is not a journaling filesystem and has no security features and is >not suitable for databases, period. Microsoft NT setup disks do not >even allow FAT32 to be installed on disks over a certain size for the >boot partition. > >PostgreSQL relies on standard features of the POSIX system, not on O/S >attributes. AFAIK, win32 is the only non POSIX API supported by the >PosgreSQL developers. If Microsoft's non POSIX compliance bothers you, >install Interix, which provides POSIX for win32 (including symlinks). >Or, use the linking option provided by the good folks who are doing the >native port. > > > I would be quite happy if we built a check into initdb to refuse to create a location on FAT. I don't know how gtar handles "junctions". Nor any of the zip utils. Does anyone else? cheers andrew