Re: For the ametures. (related to "Are we losing momentum?")
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: For the ametures. (related to "Are we losing momentum?") |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 10506.1050590131@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | For the ametures. (related to "Are we losing momentum?") (Ben Clewett <B.Clewett@roadrunner.uk.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: For the ametures. (related to "Are we losing momentum?")
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Ben Clewett <B.Clewett@roadrunner.uk.com> writes: > - The tables (not innodb) are in different files of the same name. > Allowing the OS adminitrator great ability. EG, putting tables on > separate partitions and therefore greatly speeding performance. FWIW, we used to do it that way too, many releases ago. We gave it up because it was impossible to support rollback of table deletion/rename with that storage rule underneath. Consider BEGIN; DROP TABLE a; CREATE TABLE a (with-some-other-schema); -- oops, think better of it ROLLBACK; With table files named after the table, we could not support the above, because we'd need two "a"'s in existence at the same time. Postgres' catalog mechanisms can handle rollback of the catalog changes, but the Unix filesystem never heard of rollback :-( There are other reasons, which some folks have pointed out elsewhere in this thread, but that was the killer one. I notice that MySQL seems to be migrating in this direction as well... regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: