Re: [GENERAL] Linux Largefile Support In Postgresql RPMS - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Andrew Sullivan |
---|---|
Subject | Re: [GENERAL] Linux Largefile Support In Postgresql RPMS |
Date | |
Msg-id | 20020812124014.O17166@mail.libertyrms.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: [GENERAL] Linux Largefile Support In Postgresql RPMS (Greg Copeland <greg@CopelandConsulting.Net>) |
Responses |
Re: [GENERAL] Linux Largefile Support In Postgresql RPMS
(Greg Copeland <greg@CopelandConsulting.Net>)
|
List | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 11:07:51AM -0500, Greg Copeland wrote: > Many reasons. A DBA is not always the same thing as a developer (which > means it's doubtful he's even going to know about needed options to pass > -- if any). This (and the "upgrade" argument) are simply documentation issues. If you check the FAQ_Solaris, there's already a line in there which tells you how to do it. > Lastly, and perhaps the most obvious, SA and DBA bodies of knowledge are > fairly distinct. You should not expect a DBA to function as a SA. > Furthermore, SA and developer bodies of knowledge are also fairly > distinct. You shouldn't expect a SA to know what compiler options he > needs to use to compile software on his system. Especially for > something as obscure as large file support. It seems to me that a DBA who is running a system which produces 2 Gig dump files, and who can't compile Postgres, is in for a rocky ride. Such a person needs at least a support contract, and in such a case the supporting organisation would be able to provide the needed binary. Anyway, as I said, this really seems like the sort of thing that mostly gets done when someone sends in a patch. So if it scratches your itch . . . > The distinction you make there is minor. A SA, should know and > understand the capabilities of the systems he maintains (this is true > even if the SA and DBA are one). This includes filesystem > capabilities. A DBA, should only care about the system requirements and > trust that the SA can deliver those capabilities. If a SA says, my > filesystems can support very large files, installs postgres, the DBA > should expect that match support in the database is already available. > Woe is his surprise when he finds out that his postgres installation > can't handle it?! And it seems to me the distinction you're making is an invidious one. I am sick to death of so-called experts who want to blather on about this or that tuning parameter of [insert big piece of software here] without knowing the slightest thing about the basic operating environment. A DBA has responsibility to know a fair amount about the platform in production. A DBA who doesn't is one day going to find out what deep water is. > result is pretty much the same thing as exceeding max file size. That > is, if you attempt to read/write beyond what the filesystem can provide, > you're still going to get an error. Is this really more dangerous than > simply reading/writing to a file which exceeds max system capabilities? Only if you were relying on it for backups, and suddenly your backups don't work. A -- ---- Andrew Sullivan 87 Mowat Avenue Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada <andrew@libertyrms.info> M6K 3E3 +1 416 646 3304 x110
pgsql-hackers by date: