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
>
>
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 |