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.
