Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A6042E004A for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 00:41:24 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 79179-02 for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 00:41:22 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABB8D2E003D for ; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 00:41:21 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m2L3fInh012728; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 23:41:19 -0400 (EDT) To: Bruce Momjian cc: Chris Hoover , PGSQL Performance Subject: Re: PostgreSQL NetApp and NFS In-reply-to: <200803210330.m2L3U1T28529@momjian.us> References: <200803210330.m2L3U1T28529@momjian.us> Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian message dated "Thu, 20 Mar 2008 23:30:01 -0400" Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 23:41:18 -0400 Message-ID: <12727.1206070878@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200803/417 X-Sequence-Number: 29371 Bruce Momjian writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Aside from what's said there, I'd note that it's a seriously bad idea >> to use a "soft mount" or any arrangement wherein it's possible for >> Postgres to be running while the NFS disk is not mounted. > Do the docs need updating for this? Wouldn't be a bad idea to mention it, if we're going to have a section pointing out NFS risks. regards, tom lane