RE: Big 7.1 open items

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
>
> "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > I strongly object to keep tablespace OID for smgr file reference token
> > though we have to keep it for another purpose of cource. I've mentioned
> > many times tablespace(where to store) info should be distinguished from
> > *where it is stored* info.
>
> Sure. But this proposal assumes that we're relying on symlinks to
> carry the information about physical locations corresponding to
> tablespace OIDs. The backend just needs to know enough to access a
> relation file at a relative pathname like
> tablespaceOID/relationOID
> (ignoring version and segment numbers for now). Under the hood,
> a symlink for tablespaceOID gets the work done.
>

I think tablespaceOID is an easy substitution for the purpose.
I don't like to depend on poor directory tree structure in dbms
either..

> Certainly this is not a perfect mechanism. But it is simple, it
> is reliable, it is portable to most of the platforms we care about
> (yeah, I know we have a Win port, but you wouldn't ever recommend
> someone to run a *serious* database on it would you?), and in general
> I think the bang-for-the-buck ratio is enormous. I do not want to
> have to deal with explicit tablespace bookkeeping in the backend,
> but that seems like what we'd have to do in order to improve on
> symlinks.
>

I've already mentioned about it 10 times or so but unfortunately
I see no one on my side yet.
OK,I've given up the discussion about it. I don't want to waste
my time any more.

Regards.

Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp