| From: | "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Deblauwe Gino" <De_Spike(at)Pandora(dot)Be>, "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: initdb crash |
| Date: | 2004-07-07 13:27:54 |
| Message-ID: | 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE34BE0B@algol.sollentuna.se |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers-win32 |
> From: Deblauwe Gino [mailto:De_Spike(at)Pandora(dot)Be]
>
> This isn't just convenience, NTFS (Never The Same Filesystem)
> means not running between multiple platforms.
Notice that we don't support 9x anyway. We only support NT based
systems, and they all support NTFS.
> And a crashed
> NTFS is harder to recover than a crashed FAT32. All I want
> to say is that they both have their good sides AND their bad sides.
> If you don't work with multiple OS's on 1 system and a shared
> partition between them the choice to make is definitely an
> NTFS, but there are other situations.
If they are both NT based, NTFS should not be a problem, or?
> > This is Postgres. Our motto is "We care about your data". You would
> > have to work really really hard to convince me that
> convenience wins
> > out over safety.
On the basis on this, btw, why don't we reject things like ext2 on
linux? Or any non-metadata-journalled FS (on any platforms)? Or at least
emit a warning. If we can detect it at all (I guess that could be why).
While not as bad as FAT for reliability, still not very good...
//Magnus
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2004-07-07 23:20:36 | Re: initdb crash |
| Previous Message | nobody | 2004-07-07 13:01:57 | win32 port |