Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] Tablespaces

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: PostgreSQL Win32 port list <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Tablespaces
Date: 2004-03-04 21:05:00
Message-ID: 404799FC.6060500@dunslane.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers-win32
Merlin Moncure wrote:

>>I'm ruferring to NTFS and the win32 platforms.  How does tar handle
>>    
>>
>these
>  
>
>>symlinks on the NTFS filesystem?  What about if someone finds that
>>    
>>
>FAT32
>  
>
>>is significantly better for the database?
>>    
>>
>
>FAT32 is not a journaling filesystem and has no security features and is
>not suitable for databases, period.  Microsoft NT setup disks do not
>even allow FAT32 to be installed on disks over a certain size for the
>boot partition.  
>
>PostgreSQL relies on standard features of the POSIX system, not on O/S
>attributes.  AFAIK, win32 is the only non POSIX API supported by the
>PosgreSQL developers.  If Microsoft's non POSIX compliance bothers you,
>install Interix, which provides POSIX for win32 (including symlinks).
>Or, use the linking option provided by the good folks who are doing the
>native port.
>
>  
>

I would be quite happy if we built a check into initdb to refuse to 
create a location on FAT.

I don't know how gtar handles "junctions". Nor any of the zip utils. 
Does anyone else?

cheers

andrew



In response to

pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

Next:From: Lawrence E. Smithmier, Jr.Date: 2004-03-04 21:46:03
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Tablespaces
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2004-03-04 20:29:26
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Tablespaces

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group