Re: Anything to be gained from a 'Postgres Filesystem'?

From: Markus Schaber <schabios(at)logi-track(dot)com>
To:
Cc: <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Anything to be gained from a 'Postgres Filesystem'?
Date: 2004-11-04 11:00:47
Message-ID: 20041104120047.62810c8f@kingfisher.intern.logi-track.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Hi, Leeuw,

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 12:44:10 +0200
"Leeuw van der, Tim" <tim(dot)leeuwvander(at)nl(dot)unisys(dot)com> wrote:

> (I'm not sure if it's a good idea to create a PG-specific FS in your
> OS of choice, but it's certainly gonna be easier than getting FS code
> inside of PG)

I don't think PG really needs a specific FS. I rather think that PG
could profit from some functionality that's missing in traditional UN*X
file systems.

posix_fadvise(2) may be a candidate. Read/Write bareers another pone, as
well asn syncing a bunch of data in different files with a single call
(so that the OS can determine the best write order). I can also imagine
some interaction with the FS journalling system (to avoid duplicate
efforts).

We should create a list of those needs, and then communicate those to
the kernel/fs developers. Then we (as well as other apps) can make use
of those features where they are available, and use the old way
everywhere else.

Maybe Reiser4 is a step into the right way, and maybe even a postgres
plugin for Reiser4 will be worth the effort. Maybe XFS/JFS etc. already
have such capabilities. Maybe that's completely wrong.

cheers,
Markus

--
markus schaber | dipl. informatiker
logi-track ag | rennweg 14-16 | ch 8001 zürich
phone +41-43-888 62 52 | fax +41-43-888 62 53
mailto:schabios(at)logi-track(dot)com | www.logi-track.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2004-11-04 12:19:00 Re: Restricting Postgres
Previous Message Richard Huxton 2004-11-04 08:32:08 Re: index not used if using IN or OR