I think this is not really an apples-to-apples comparison :
- ext2 has persistent security permissions
- ext2 is considerably more robust than fat
Similar comments - but with more force in the second point - would apply
for the various ufs implementations.
regards
Mark
Magnus Hagander wrote:
>On the basis on this, btw, why don't we reject things like ext2 on
>linux? Or any non-metadata-journalled FS (on any platforms)? Or at least
>emit a warning. If we can detect it at all (I guess that could be why).
>While not as bad as FAT for reliability, still not very good...
>
>//Magnus
>
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
>