Re: 15,000 tables

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Ron <rjpeace(at)earthlink(dot)net>
Cc: Tino Wildenhain <tino(at)wildenhain(dot)de>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 15,000 tables
Date: 2005-12-01 18:57:33
Message-ID: 15739.1133463453@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-es-ayuda pgsql-performance

Ron <rjpeace(at)earthlink(dot)net> writes:
> Agreed. Also the odds of fs corruption or data loss are higher in a
> non journaling fs. Best practice seems to be to use a journaling fs
> but to put the fs log on dedicated spindles separate from the actual
> fs or pg_xlog.

I think we've determined that best practice is to journal metadata only
(not file contents) on PG data filesystems. PG does expect the filesystem
to remember where the files are, so you need metadata protection, but
journalling file content updates is redundant with PG's own WAL logging.

On a filesystem dedicated to WAL, you probably do not need any
filesystem journalling at all --- we manage the WAL files in a way
that avoids changing metadata for a WAL file that's in active use.
A conservative approach would be to journal metadata here too, though.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-es-ayuda by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jaime Casanova 2005-12-01 18:59:54 Re: Consulta
Previous Message Rodrigo Barahona 2005-12-01 18:53:00 Consulta

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gavin M. Roy 2005-12-01 19:08:59 Re: 15,000 tables
Previous Message Gavin M. Roy 2005-12-01 18:49:43 Re: 15,000 tables