Re: Raw device on PostgreSQL

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Andreas Karlsson <andreas(at)proxel(dot)se>, Benjamin Schaller <benjamin(dot)schaller(at)s2018(dot)tu-chemnitz(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Raw device on PostgreSQL
Date: 2020-04-30 00:35:39
Message-ID: 12111.1588206939@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Yeah, I think the question is what are the expected benefits of using
> raw devices. It might be an interesting exercise / experiment, but my
> understanding is that most of the benefits can be achieved by using file
> systems but with direct I/O and async I/O, which would allow us to
> continue reusing the existing filesystem code with much less disruption
> to our code base.

There's another very large problem with using raw devices: on pretty
much every platform, you don't get to do that without running as root.
It is not easy to express how hard a sell it would be to even consider
allowing Postgres to run as root. Between the security issues, and
the generally poor return-on-investment we'd get from reinventing
our own filesystem and I/O scheduler, I just don't see this sort of
thing ever going forward. Direct and/or async I/O seems a lot more
plausible.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jonathan S. Katz 2020-04-30 01:22:36 Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?
Previous Message Jonah H. Harris 2020-04-30 00:34:24 Re: Raw device on PostgreSQL