Re: initdb crash

From: Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)coretech(dot)co(dot)nz>
To: Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>
Cc: Deblauwe Gino <De_Spike(at)Pandora(dot)Be>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: initdb crash
Date: 2004-07-07 23:20:36
Message-ID: 40EC8544.1040306@coretech.co.nz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers-win32

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(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tony and Bryn Reina 2004-07-08 13:05:31 Finding zlib on MinGW
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2004-07-07 13:27:54 Re: initdb crash