>> I do not intend to undertake raw disk tablespaces for 7.5. I'd be
>> interested if anyone could provide some real world benchmarking of file
>> system vs. raw disk. Postgres benefits a lot from kernel file system
>> at the moment.
> Yes, and don't forget that pg also relys on the OS for grouping and
> sorting the physical writes and doing readahead where appropriate.
Most people I know want tablespaces in order to limit or preallocate the
disk space used by a table or database in addition to controlling the
physical location of a table or database.
I know on linux, there is the option of creating an empty file or a
specific size using dd, mounting it through loopback, formatting it,
symlinking the appropriate OID/TID (or mounting the lpb device in the
appropriate directory) and then you control how much space that
directory/mount point can contain.
Of course, with MVCC you would have to vacuum frequently, as you could
miss some updates if there weren't enough tuples marked as free. If there
were "in-place" updates, the preallocation and limitation much easier, but
that's not how PG works.
If the tablespace disk space allocation is exceeded there would need to be
some graceful reporting condition back to the client. "UPDATE/INSERT
failed (tablespace size exceeded)", "(tablespace full)", "(disk full)" or
some other error may need to be handled/reported.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: tswan||Date: 2004-02-27 19:47:05|
|Subject: Re: CVS HEAD compile warning|
|Previous:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2004-02-27 19:12:31|
|Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Collaboration Tool Proposal|