Re: For the ametures. (related to "Are we losing momentum?")

Kevin Brown <kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> This has been proposed and rejected repeatedly in the tablespace
>> discussions. It's too limiting; and what's worse, it's not actually
>> any easier to implement than a proper tablespace facility.

> It's not? This is a little surprising, since the type information is
> already stored, is it not? A proper tablespace implementation
> requires the addition of commands to manage it and table
> infrastructure to store it.

Well, yeah, you do have to provide some user interface stuff ;-)

But the hard, dirty, dangerous stuff is all in the low-level internals
(bufmgr, smgr, etc). I don't want to put a kluge in there when the same
amount of work will support a non-kluge solution.

Also, you'd still have to provide some user interface stuff for the
kluge, so it's not like you can avoid doing any work at that level.

regards, tom lane