| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Rui Zhao <xiyuan(dot)zr(at)alibaba-inc(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade fails with in-place tablespace[ |
| Date: | 2023-09-05 20:08:17 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYikUCLsv5QJKfo8wiuNH5g1Kns_w-RLtiizqKbHNYWVw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 11:29 PM Rui Zhao <xiyuan(dot)zr(at)alibaba-inc(dot)com> wrote:
> Thank you for your response. It is evident that there is a need
> for this features in our system.
> Firstly, our customers express their desire to utilize tablespaces
> for table management, without necessarily being concerned about
> the directory location of these tablespaces.
That's not the purpose of that feature. I'm not sure that we should be
worrying about users who want to use features for a purpose other than
the one for which they were designed.
> Secondly, currently PG only supports absolute-path tablespaces, but
> in-place tablespaces are very likely to become popular in the future.
That's not really a reason. If you said why this was going to happen,
that might be a reason, but just asserting that it will happen isn't.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2023-09-05 20:23:29 | Re: Initdb-time block size specification |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2023-09-05 19:52:18 | Re: Initdb-time block size specification |