From: | Dimitri Fontaine <dim(at)dalibo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Multiple Storage per Tablespace, or Volumes |
Date: | 2007-02-19 16:10:36 |
Message-ID: | 200702191710.36553.dim@dalibo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Le lundi 19 février 2007 16:33, Tom Lane a écrit :
> Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> > Somehow this seems like implementing RAID within postgres,
>
> RAID and LVM too. I can't get excited about re-inventing those wheels
> when perfectly good implementations already exist for us to sit on top of.
I though moving some knowledge about data availability into PostgreSQL code
could provide some valuable performance benefit, allowing to organize reads
(for example parallel tables scan/indexes scan to different volumes) and
obtaining data from 'quicker' known volume (or least used/charged).
You're both saying RAID/LVM implementations provide good enough performances
for PG not having to go this way, if I understand correctly.
And distributed file systems are enough to have the replication stuff, without
PG having to deal explicitly with the work involved.
May be I should have slept after all ;)
Thanks for your time and comments, regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2007-02-19 16:10:58 | Re: pg_proc without oid? |
Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-02-19 16:08:05 | Re: pg_proc without oid? |