| From: | Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)skype(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: WORM and Read Only Tables (v0.1) |
| Date: | 2007-12-11 13:07:30 |
| Message-ID: | 1197378450.14272.82.camel@PCD12478 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2007-12-11 at 14:58 +0200, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> Ühel kenal päeval, T, 2007-12-11 kell 13:44, kirjutas Csaba Nagy:
> >> Then put the active chunk on a high performance file system and the
> > archive tablespace on a compressed/slow/cheap file system and you're
> > done. Allow even the archive chunk to be updateable, and put new tuple
> > data in the active chunk. It would work just fine for cases where the
> > old data is rarely updated/deleted...
>
> You can't update a table on a read-only (write-once) partition, at least
> not with current header structure.
OK, but that's what I'm challenging, why do you need a write once
partition ? You mean by that tapes ? OK, it means I was thinking in
completely different usage scenarios then...
Cheers,
Csaba.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-12-11 13:18:42 | Re: Document how to turn off disk write cache on popular operating |
| Previous Message | Zdenek Kotala | 2007-12-11 13:06:57 | Re: quotas once again |