| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Craig Ringer <craig(dot)ringer(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Some thoughts on NFS |
| Date: | 2019-02-19 18:21:21 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob=RGzV=hWv=08Mp3J8qoxK88TaE7SZ=UDYPM__WKXSnQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 1:17 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2019-02-19 16:59:35 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > There might be a use-case for the split that you mention, absolutely, but
> > it's not going to solve the people-who-want-NFS situation. You'd solve more
> > of that by having the middle layer speak "raw device" underneath and be
> > able to sit on top of things like iSCSI (yes, really).
>
> There's decent iSCSI implementations in several kernels, without the NFS
> problems. I'm not sure what we'd gain by reimplementing those?
Is that a new thing? I ran across PostgreSQL-over-iSCSI a number of
years ago and the evidence strongly suggested that it did not reliably
report disk errors back to PostgreSQL, leading to corruption.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2019-02-19 18:28:00 | Re: WAL insert delay settings |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2019-02-19 18:17:15 | Re: Some thoughts on NFS |