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 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
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:
> >
[snip]
> 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?
Magnus
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Programmer/Networker [|] Magnus Naeslund
PGP Key: http://www.genline.nu/mag_pgp.txt
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Don Baccus | 2000-12-02 19:31:37 | Re: beta testing version |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-12-02 16:42:38 | Re: beta testing version |