Kevin Grittner wrote:
> >>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Kevin Grittner wrote:
> >> Did you mean to say that journaled file systems are *not*
> necessary?
> >
> > Yes, not needed for database reliablity. The patch text was
> attached;
> > was it unclear?
>
> I think you accidentally left out the
>>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> Did you mean to say that journaled file systems are *not*
necessary?
>
> Yes, not needed for database reliablity. The patch text was
attached;
> was it unclear?
I think you accidentally left out the word "not".
-Kevin
--
Sent via pgsql-h
Kevin Grittner wrote:
> >>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> >> In your document change which one can be placed on non-journalling
> >> file system? data? wal? or both?
> >
> > Both. I have updated the docs to mention this, patch attached.
>
> Did you mean to say that journaled f
>>> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>> In your document change which one can be placed on non-journalling
>> file system? data? wal? or both?
>
> Both. I have updated the docs to mention this, patch attached.
Did you mean to say that journaled file systems are *not* necessary?
-Ke
Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> In your document change which one can be placed on non-journalling
> file system? data? wal? or both?
Both. I have updated the docs to mention this, patch attached.
--
Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://e
Bruce,
In your document change which one can be placed on non-journalling
file system? data? wal? or both?
For me it seems it's not clear.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
> Josh Berkus wrote:
> >
> > >> First, none of the general purpose filesystems I've seen so far do data
> > >> journalli
Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> >> First, none of the general purpose filesystems I've seen so far do data
> >> journalling per default, since it's a huge performance penalty, even for
> >> non-RDBMS workloads. The feature you talk about is ext3 specific (and
> >> should be pointed out as such) and only di
First, none of the general purpose filesystems I've seen so far do data
journalling per default, since it's a huge performance penalty, even for
non-RDBMS workloads. The feature you talk about is ext3 specific (and
should be pointed out as such) and only disables write ordering, meaning
that met
Michael Renner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the comment WRT WAL recovery and FS journals [1] is a bit misleading in
> it's current form.
>
> First, none of the general purpose filesystems I've seen so far do data
> journalling per default, since it's a huge performance penalty, even for
> non-RDBMS workloads
Hi,
the comment WRT WAL recovery and FS journals [1] is a bit misleading in
it's current form.
First, none of the general purpose filesystems I've seen so far do data
journalling per default, since it's a huge performance penalty, even for
non-RDBMS workloads. The feature you talk about is ext3 s
10 matches
Mail list logo
