On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 8:45 AM, Greg Stark <gsst...@mit.edu> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 3:43 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> A related, interesting question is whether there's any purpose to the >> smgr layer at all. Would we accept a patch that implemented an >> alternative smgr layer, perhaps on a per-tablespace basis? > > I definitely want to keep it. > > I think we could usefully do an application-level raid implementation. > It would be useful for people running on machines where they don't > have administrative access on the machine. In particular I'm picturing > shared cluster machines that run other jobs and can't be reconfigured > specifically for the database. Adding per-tablespace behaviour would > make the argument a lot stronger too since it's not so easy to set up > different stripe sizes per table if you're using OS level raid.
That would actually be kind of cool. > I also have various crazy plans to experiment with network-based > storage and had intended to use smgr to do so. At google we have a > bunch of different storage technologies and they're all > application-level network services. You can always implement a fuse > module that calls back up to a daemon which acts as the client but > that doesn't make me feel any happier about it. Me either. I really like the idea of trying to use network-based storage in some way. Gigabit Ethernet is a big I/O channel. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
