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.
I think DVD or CD would make sence, Tapes have an added limitation of being sequential access only.
