From: | Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] Physical Database Configuration |
Date: | 2003-06-26 16:07:13 |
Message-ID: | 200306262137.13191.shridhar_daithankar@nospam.persistent.co.in |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Thursday 26 June 2003 21:29, Tom Lane wrote:
> Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in> writes:
> > Well, consider this. Keep in mind that all of them are directories..
>
> I can see no reason that we'd want a level of directory associated with
> schemas...
Moving a multi-hundreds-of-GB table across schemas would be sooo easy..:-)
I don't know how difficult/time consuming that is right now. Shouldn't be
actually if PG updates the schema contents in it's catalog but anyway..
I just put it for clarification. If PG can do everything directory has to
offer, well, we don't need directory for schemas.
Shridhar
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-06-26 16:22:27 | Re: [GENERAL] Physical Database Configuration |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-06-26 15:59:47 | Re: [GENERAL] Physical Database Configuration |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-06-26 16:22:27 | Re: [GENERAL] Physical Database Configuration |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-06-26 15:59:47 | Re: [GENERAL] Physical Database Configuration |