Re: Anyone for SSDs?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Vaibhav Kaushal <vaibhavkaushal123(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Anyone for SSDs?
Date: 2010-12-10 15:27:25
Message-ID: 23278.1291994845@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 1:39 AM, Vaibhav Kaushal
> <vaibhavkaushal123(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Most of you already know I am new to this list and newer to any OSS
>> development. However, while browsing the source code (of 9.0.1) I find
>> that there is only one way to store relations on disk - the magnetic
>> disk.

> But as far as the code goes, there doesn't seem to be any reason why
> SSDs would require any changes to md.c, or an alternate
> implementation. The interface the operating system presents is the
> same.

The fact that it's called md.c is a hangover from the '80s. These days,
the logic that the Berkeley guys envisioned being at that code level
is generally in kernel device drivers. md.c can drive anything that
behaves as a block device + filesystem, which is pretty much everything
of interest.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-12-10 15:32:56 Re: Extensions, patch v16
Previous Message BRUSSER Michael 2010-12-10 15:26:07 Re: initdb failure with Postgres 8.4.4