| From: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Bruce Momjian'" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Ross J(dot) Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu> |
| Subject: | RE: Big 7.1 open items |
| Date: | 2000-06-27 17:54:55 |
| Message-ID: | 8F4C99C66D04D4118F580090272A7A23018C39@SECTORBASE1 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > > The symlinks wouldn't do any good for what Bruce had in
> > > mind anyway (IIRC, he wanted to get useful per-database
> > > numbers from "du").
> >
> > Our database design seems to be in the opposite direction
> > if it is restricted for the convenience of command calls.
>
> Well, I don't see any reason not to use tablespace/database
> rather than just tablespace. Seems having fewer files in each directory
Once again - ability to use different tablespaces (disks) for tables/indices
in the same schema. Schemas must not dictate where to store objects <-
bad design.
> will be a little faster, and if we can make administration easier,
> why not?
Because you'll not be able use du/ls once we'll implement new smgr anyway.
And, btw, - for what are we going implement tablespaces? Just to have
fewer files in each dir ?!
Vadim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-06-27 18:05:49 | Re: Makefile for parser |
| Previous Message | pgsql-hackers | 2000-06-27 17:54:43 | 7.0.2 on Solaris |