On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 07:10:52PM -0800, David Fetter wrote:
>
> Isn't this one of the big use cases for table partitioning?
Sure, but you can't detach that data in the meantime, AFAIK. Maybe
I've missed something.
If I have 10 years of finace data, and I have to keep it all online
all the tim
On Monday 19 February 2007 11:27, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 05:10:36PM +0100, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> > > RAID and LVM too. I can't get excited about re-inventing those wheels
> > > when perfectly good implementations already exist for us to sit on top
> > > of.
> >
On Monday 19 February 2007 15:08, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 10:33:24AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> Martijn van Oosterhout writes:
> > >>> Somehow this seems like implementing RAID within postgres,
> > >>
> > >> RAID and
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 02:50:34PM -0500, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 10:33:24AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Martijn van Oosterhout writes:
> > > Somehow this seems like implementing RAID within postgres,
> >
> > RAID and LVM too. I can't get excited about re-inventing those
On Mon, 2007-02-19 at 17:35 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 10:33:24AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Martijn van Oosterhout writes:
> > > > Somehow this seems like implementing RAID within postgres,
> > >
> > > RAID and LVM too. I can't get excite
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 10:33:24AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Martijn van Oosterhout writes:
> > > Somehow this seems like implementing RAID within postgres,
> >
> > RAID and LVM too. I can't get excited about re-inventing those wheels
> > when perfectly good implementat
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 10:33:24AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Martijn van Oosterhout writes:
> >>> Somehow this seems like implementing RAID within postgres,
> >> RAID and LVM too. I can't get excited about re-inventing those wheels
> >> when p
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Longer than that... it supported mirroring and raid 5 in NT4 and
possibly even NT3.51 IIRC.
Mirroring and RAID 5 go back to Windows NT 3.1 Advanced Server in 1993:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/114779
http://www.byte.com/art/9404/sec8/art7.htm
Th
Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 10:33:24AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Martijn van Oosterhout writes:
>>> Somehow this seems like implementing RAID within postgres,
>> RAID and LVM too. I can't get excited about re-inventing those wheels
>> when perfectly good implementations alrea
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 10:33:24AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Martijn van Oosterhout writes:
> > Somehow this seems like implementing RAID within postgres,
>
> RAID and LVM too. I can't get excited about re-inventing those wheels
> when perfectly good implementations already exist for us to sit on
Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Martijn van Oosterhout writes:
Somehow this seems like implementing RAID within postgres,
>>> RAID and LVM too. I can't get excited about re-inventing those
>>> wheels when perfectly good implementations already exi
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Windows supports both RAID and LVM.
Oh good, so we've got that on record. :)
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donat
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Martijn van Oosterhout writes:
>>> Somehow this seems like implementing RAID within postgres,
>> RAID and LVM too. I can't get excited about re-inventing those
>> wheels when perfectly good implementations already exist for us to
>> sit on top of.
>
>
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Martijn van Oosterhout writes:
>>> Somehow this seems like implementing RAID within postgres,
>> RAID and LVM too. I can't get excited about re-inventing those
>> wheels when perfectly good implementations already exist for us to
>> sit on top of.
>
>
Tom Lane wrote:
> Martijn van Oosterhout writes:
> > Somehow this seems like implementing RAID within postgres,
>
> RAID and LVM too. I can't get excited about re-inventing those
> wheels when perfectly good implementations already exist for us to
> sit on top of.
I expect that someone will poin
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 05:10:36PM +0100, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> > RAID and LVM too. I can't get excited about re-inventing those wheels
> > when perfectly good implementations already exist for us to sit on top of.
>
> I though moving some knowledge about data availability into PostgreSQL cod
Dimitri Fontaine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You're both saying RAID/LVM implementations provide good enough performances
> for PG not having to go this way, if I understand correctly.
There's certainly no evidence to suggest that reimplementing them
ourselves would be a productive use of our t
Le lundi 19 février 2007 16:33, Tom Lane a écrit :
> Martijn van Oosterhout writes:
> > Somehow this seems like implementing RAID within postgres,
>
> RAID and LVM too. I can't get excited about re-inventing those wheels
> when perfectly good implementations already exist for us to sit on top of.
Martijn van Oosterhout writes:
> Somehow this seems like implementing RAID within postgres,
RAID and LVM too. I can't get excited about re-inventing those wheels
when perfectly good implementations already exist for us to sit on top of.
regards, tom lane
---
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 11:25:41AM +0100, Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
> Hi list,
>
> Here's a proposal of this idea which stole a good part of my night.
> I'll present first the idea, then 2 use cases where to read some rational and
> few details. Please note I won't be able to participate in any dev
20 matches
Mail list logo
