On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 4:55 PM, 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, I'm surprised by your response. If we've not documented something that turns out to be essential to reliability of production databases, then our users have a problem. If our users have a data loss problem, my understanding was that we fixed it. As it turns out, I've never personally advised anyone to use a non-journalled filesystem, so my hands are clean in this. But it is something we can fix, if we chose. > we > ought to be more explicit about which filesystems and which mount > options we recommend. Please be explicit then. What should the docs have said? I will update them. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
