Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
>> By that argument, we need to be programming to bare metal on every disk
>> access. Does anyone want to argue that depending on vendor-specific
>> filesystem functionality is not a house of cards? (And unfortunately,
>> that's much too close to the truth ... but yet we're not going there.)
> I think you're making my argument for me. The file system API is far
> more portable than the behavior we're proposing to depend on here, and
> yet it's only arguably good enough to meet our needs.
Uh, it's not API that's at issue here, and as for "not portable" I think
you have failed to make that case. It is true that there are some old
platforms where keepalive isn't adjustable, but I doubt that anything
anyone is likely to be running mission-critical PG 9.0 on will lack it.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
