On 11/12/2007, Csaba Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 2007-12-11 at 14:58 +0200, Hannu Krosing wrote: > > Ühel kenal päeval, T, 2007-12-11 kell 13:44, kirjutas Csaba Nagy: > > >> Then put the active chunk on a high performance file system and the > > > archive tablespace on a compressed/slow/cheap file system and you're > > > done. Allow even the archive chunk to be updateable, and put new tuple > > > data in the active chunk. It would work just fine for cases where the > > > old data is rarely updated/deleted... > > > > You can't update a table on a read-only (write-once) partition, at least > > not with current header structure. > > OK, but that's what I'm challenging, why do you need a write once > partition ? You mean by that tapes ? OK, it means I was thinking in > completely different usage scenarios then... > > Cheers, > Csaba. > > > I think DVD or CD would make sence, Tapes have an added limitation of being sequential access only.
Peter Childs
