Re: Single-file DBs WAS: Need concrete 'Why Postgres
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Single-file DBs WAS: Need concrete 'Why Postgres |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 13749.1061764758@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Single-file DBs WAS: Need concrete 'Why Postgres ("Andrew Dunstan" <andrew@dunslane.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Single-file DBs WAS: Need concrete 'Why Postgres
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
"Andrew Dunstan" <andrew@dunslane.net> writes: > Is anyone seriously suggesting that postgres should support either raw > devices or use some sort of virtual file system? If not, this whole > discussion is way off topic. I have zero interest in actually doing it. However, it'd be nice if the existing "storage manager" API were clean enough that our response to this type of question could be "sure, go implement it, and when you're done let us know what performance improvement you see". We've allowed the smgr API to degenerate over the years. CREATE/DROP DATABASE both bypass it, and the support for alternate database locations messes up the API pretty thoroughly (not that there's anything clean about that feature at all), and I think there are some other issues with specific commands bypassing the smgr abstractions. I think it would be reasonable to fix this as part of the "tablespaces" work that people keep wanting to do. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: