On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2015-04-21 16:21:47 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> All that having been said, I don't think adding a new fork is a good >> approach. We already have problems pretty commonly where our >> customers complain about running out of inodes. Adding another fork >> for every table would exacerbate that problem considerably. > > Really? These days? There's good arguments against another fork > (increased number of fsyncs, more stat calls, increased number of file > handles, more WAL logging, ...), but the number of inodes themselves > seems like something halfway recent filesystems should handle.
Not making it up... -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
