Am 23.01.14 02:14, schrieb Jim Nasby:
> On 1/19/14, 5:51 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>> Postgres is far from being the only application that wants this; many
>>> >people resort to tmpfs because of this:
>>> >https://lwn.net/Articles/499410/
>> Yes, we covered the possibility of using tmpfs much earlier in the
>> thread, and came to the conclusion that temp files can be larger
>> than memory so tmpfs isn't the solution here.:)
>
> Although... instead of inventing new APIs and foisting this work onto
> applications, perhaps it would be better to modify tmpfs such that it
> can handle a temp space that's larger than memory... possibly backing
> it with X amount of real disk and allowing it/the kernel to decide
> when to passively move files out of the in-memory tmpfs and onto disk.
This is exactly what I'd expect from a file system that's suitable for
tmp purposes. The current tmpfs better should have been named memfs or
so, since it lacks the dedicated disk backing storage.
Regards,
Andreas
