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

Tom Lane wrote:
> > I'm not proposing that we return to calling the individual files (or
> > the database they reside in) by name, only that we include a "type"
> > identifier in the path so that objects of different types can be
> > located on different spindles if the DBA so desires.
>
> 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. That seems like a bit more work than
writing a function to translate an object ID into a type name (and
changing CREATE/DROP DATABASE to deal with multiple directories). But
since you're much more familiar with the internals, I'll take your
word for it.

I figured getting the type name of the object would be a relatively
easy thing to do, obvious to anyone with any real familiarity with the
source. Guess not...

--
Kevin Brown kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com