On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 10:59 PM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky
<znmeb@cesmail.net> wrote:
> Ah, but shouldn't a PostgreSQL (or any other database, for that matter)
> have its own set of filesystems tuned to the application's I/O patterns?
> Sure, there are some people who need to have all of their eggs in one
> basket because they can't afford multiple baskets. For them, maybe the
> OS defaults are the right choice. But if you're building a
> database-specific server, you can optimize the I/O for that.
It's really about a cost / benefits analysis. 20 years ago file
systems were slow and buggy and a database could, with little work,
outperform them. Nowadays, not so much. I'm guessing that the extra
cost and effort of maintaining a file system for pgsql outweighs any
real gain you're likely to see performance wise.
But I'm sure that if you implemented one that outran XFS / ZFS / ext3
et. al. people would want to hear about it.
