| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, 小波 顾 <guxiaobo1982(at)hotmail(dot)com>, Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com>, chris(dot)ellis(at)shropshire(dot)gov(dot)uk, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Are there plans to add data compression feature to postgresql? |
| Date: | 2008-10-31 03:43:05 |
| Message-ID: | 25675.1225424585@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Sure, bash Microsoft it's easy. But it doesn't address the point, is
> a database safe on top of a compressed file system and if not, why?
It is certainly *less* safe than it is on top of an uncompressed
filesystem. Any given hardware failure will affect more stored bits
(if the compression is effective) in a less predictable way.
If you assume that hardware failure rates are below your level of
concern, this doesn't matter. But DBAs are paid to be paranoid.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyle Cordes | 2008-10-31 04:32:59 | Re: Decreasing WAL size effects |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2008-10-31 03:15:41 | Re: Are there plans to add data compression feature to postgresql? |