| From: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Fixing PKs and Uniques in tablespaces |
| Date: | 2004-07-22 07:47:26 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.58.0407221743540.14335@linuxworld.com.au |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> >>Does anyone object to extending the grammar to allow this?
> >
> > Yes. This is horribly ugly, and I suspect that you cannot do it
> > without making TABLESPACE a fully-reserved word.
>
> I note that this seems to be the Oracle syntax:
>
> CONSTRAINT PK_Stock PRIMARY KEY (Company) USING INDEX TABLESPACE
> Appl_Indexes
>
> http://www.siue.edu/~dbock/cmis564/otext4.htm
>
> Since we stole tablespaces from Oracle, maybe we should make them work
> the same?
I never really considered oracle's implementation of tablespaces when I
worked on tablespaces. The database default tablespace seems similar to
Oracle's SYSTEM tablespace. I'm not sure if they use a global tablespace
like we do.
I also cannot find any information about Oracle placing object's in their
parent's table space if a tablespace isn't specified.
Tablespaces in Oracle also do raw block device stuff, which we obviously
don't.
I'd dare say that tablespaces in Oracle don't use symlinks either :-)
Gavin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2004-07-22 07:54:46 | Re: Fixing PKs and Uniques in tablespaces |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2004-07-22 07:46:59 | Re: PreallocXlogFiles |