Re: tablespaces a priority for 7.5? - Mailing list pgsql-general
From | Brian Maguire |
---|---|
Subject | Re: tablespaces a priority for 7.5? |
Date | |
Msg-id | 203C7FC3FF2D7A4588CE0429A87F3C9A0AC567@vt-pe2550-001.vantage.vantage.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | tablespaces a priority for 7.5? ("Brian Maguire" <bmaguire@vantage.com>) |
Responses |
Re: tablespaces a priority for 7.5?
|
List | pgsql-general |
I agree that RAID provides similar performance benifits especially with striping io benifits, however it is powerful andideal to have both options. For example you may have a set of tables that are read-only for reporting and another setmostly write only. You could have they resting on different raid configurations ideal for each situtation. I also agree there are several admin benifits in the areas of backup. You can also more easily create different frequency/schedulesof backup for certain critical tables to a different schedule than other less important tables. Theflexibility of easily growing your database beyond the current disk because of size limitations can be a life savior. brian -----Original Message----- From: lnd@hnit.is [mailto:lnd@hnit.is] Sent: Wed 1/21/2004 12:22 PM To: Brian Maguire Cc: Subject: RE: [GENERAL] tablespaces a priority for 7.5? In RAID era tablespaces are not such important regarding performance. But for backup/restore - the ability to backup/restore selected tablespaces while leaving other tablespaces is a big thing. The whole point here is: it is assumed that backup/restore of tablespaces can hapen quite quickly and as simple as to copy tablespace files from one location to another(even while database is on - WAL can be used to handle this) - this is compared to dump. For example, index, tempoarary data tablespaces can be lost - not a big deal. Undo(rollback) tablespaces - in a way can be lost as well. While system data tablespace (table structure, stored procedures, etc) - at no cost should be lost. The same way application can be devided in "critical" and "not critical" tablespaces and their backups maintained accordingly. For example, it may not be a big deal to lose year 1996 tables while year 2004 tables should be online. Laimis > -----Original Message----- > From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Brian Maguire > Sent: 21. janúar 2004 16:06 > To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org > Subject: [GENERAL] tablespaces a priority for 7.5? > > > Is support for tablespaces a priority feature for 7.5? I > believe there has been significant development in this area > and it seems that postgres' file structure opens it up nicely > to support it. What are the chances this will be completed? > > In my opinion, it really is a critical feature to support and > administer enterprise databases. All the major databases > currently support this and it is a compelling enough reason > drive big users from away from using postgres for their > enterprise/large databases. It really is a database > administrator's feature. > > > Brian > > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > http://archives.postgresql.org
pgsql-general by date: