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

Re: Pre-allocation of space: a business rationale

From: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: dave(dot)bath(at)unix(dot)net, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Pre-allocation of space: a business rationale
Date: 2005-11-03 19:21:30
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-admin
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 10:48:00PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Bath, David" <dave(dot)bath(at)unix(dot)net> writes:
> > C) I want to avoid the possibility of uncontrolled growth of luser data
> >    blowing disk leading to stoppage of 24x7 data.
> You put the luser data and the critical data into separate tablespaces
> that are in separate partitions (filesystems).  End of problem ...
> (And no, I don't believe in having Postgres reinvent filesystem-level
> functionality.  If you didn't set up appropriate hard partitions,
> consider a loopback filesystem for your tablespace.)

Does every OS we support have a loopback filesystem? Can they all impose
space limits?

It doesn't seem unreasonable to support a limit on tablespace (or table)
size. It also doesn't seem like it would take that much code to add
support for it. Of course usual disclaimer about 'submit a patch then'
applies, but it sounds like such a patch would get rejected out-of-hand.
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant      jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software    work: 512-231-6117
vcard:       cell: 512-569-9461

In response to

pgsql-admin by date

Next:From: Jim C. NasbyDate: 2005-11-03 19:31:19
Subject: Re: pg_dump and truncate
Previous:From: Randall SmithDate: 2005-11-03 18:43:47
Subject: Backup/Restore Views

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