| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Davis <jdavis-pgsql(at)empires(dot)org> |
| Cc: | David Garamond <lists(at)zara(dot)6(dot)isreserved(dot)com>, PgSQL General List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ext3 |
| Date: | 2005-01-18 04:38:40 |
| Message-ID: | 14252.1106023120@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Jeff Davis <jdavis-pgsql(at)empires(dot)org> writes:
> In other words, does PostgreSQL assume that the filesystem at least
> journals the metadata?
Postgres assumes that the filesystem can take care of itself, which we
define as not losing or corrupting successfully-fsynced data. The
original BSD filesystem designs met this requirement without any
journal; they were just careful about the order in which things got
forced to disk. It appears that ext3 may not be able to meet this
requirement even with a journal :-(. But in theory a metadata journal
should be sufficient. Journaling data writes is redundant, unless maybe
the filesystem substitutes that for the ordinary idea of fsync().
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-01-18 04:41:34 | Re: Logging question |
| Previous Message | Michael Fuhr | 2005-01-18 04:29:02 | Re: Logging question |