From: | "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | "Chris Bitmead" <chrisb(at)nimrod(dot)itg(dot)telstra(dot)com(dot)au> |
Cc: | "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | RE: Big 7.1 open items |
Date: | 2000-06-21 09:37:02 |
Message-ID: | EKEJJICOHDIEMGPNIFIJEEDECCAA.Inoue@tpf.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)hub(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner(at)hub(dot)org]On Behalf Of Chris Bitmead
>
> "Ross J. Reedstrom" wrote:
>
> > The important point I think is that tablespaces are about physical
> > storage/namespace, and SCHEMA are about logical namespace: it would make
> > sense for tables from multiple schema to live in the same tablespace,
> > as well as tables from one schema to be stored in multiple tablespaces.
>
> If we accept that argument (which sounds good) then wouldn't we have...
>
> data/base/db1/table1 -> ../../../tablespace/ts1/db1.table1
> data/base/db1/table2 -> ../../../tablespace/ts1/db1.table2
> data/tablespace/ts1/db1.table1
> data/tablespace/ts1/db1.table2
>
Hmm,is above symlinking business really preferable just because
it is possible ? Why do we have to be dependent upon directory
tree representation when we handle db structure ?
Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB | 2000-06-21 09:49:26 | AW: Big 7.1 open items |
Previous Message | Philip J. Warner | 2000-06-21 06:55:58 | RE: Big 7.1 open items |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-06-21 14:55:39 | Re: Big 7.1 open items |
Previous Message | Philip J. Warner | 2000-06-21 06:55:58 | RE: Big 7.1 open items |