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

Re: beta testing version

From: "Magnus Naeslund\(f\)" <mag(at)fbab(dot)net>
To: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: beta testing version
Date: 2000-12-02 18:35:54
Message-ID: 00e601c05c8e$b466c7c0$020a0a0a@totalmef (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
From: "Nathan Myers" <ncm(at)zembu(dot)com>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 07:02:01PM -0400, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> >
> The logging in 7.1 protects transactions against many sources of
> database crash, but not necessarily against OS crash, and certainly
> not against power failure.  (You might get lucky, or you might just
> think you were lucky.)  This is the same as for most databases; an
> embedded database that talks directly to the hardware might be able
> to do better.

If PG had a type of tree based logging filesystem, that it self handles,
wouldn't that be almost perfectly safe? I mean that you might lose some data
in an transaction, but the client never gets an OK anyways...
Like a combination of raw block io and tux2 like fs.
Doesn't Oracle do it's own block io, no?


 Programmer/Networker [|] Magnus Naeslund
 PGP Key:

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Don BaccusDate: 2000-12-02 19:31:37
Subject: Re: beta testing version
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2000-12-02 16:42:38
Subject: Re: beta testing version

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group