Re: [GENERAL] [pgsql-advocacy] Need concrete "Why Postgres
От | Shridhar Daithankar |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [GENERAL] [pgsql-advocacy] Need concrete "Why Postgres |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200308221406.48005.shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [GENERAL] [pgsql-advocacy] Need concrete "Why Postgres (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: [GENERAL] [pgsql-advocacy] Need concrete 'Why Postgres
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Friday 22 August 2003 13:59, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Shridhar Daithankar wrote: > >BTW any comments on storing an entire database in single file? I don't > > trust any file system for performance and data integrity if I have single > > 100GB file. I would rather have multiple of them.. > > I don't see why not. Entire file systems are stored within a single file > sometimes. Examples: vmware, and IIRC UserMode Linux. Well, half the day that I have spent on interbase documnetation, I didn't see any WAL type logs. If transactions directly go to database and entire database is file, I seriously doubt about performance and recovery. UML and VMware are emulators. You don't want to use them in production right? I would really love if UML allowed access to filesystems. A Jail type feature including access control right in memory. That would really rock but it's a different story.. Shridhar
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: