Re: Physical Database Configuration

From: nolan(at)celery(dot)tssi(dot)com
To: shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Physical Database Configuration
Date: 2003-06-25 15:19:42
Message-ID: 20030625151942.16976.qmail@celery.tssi.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

> Well, correct solution is to implement tablespaces on which objects like
> databases, tables and indexes can be put.

I've not looked at the SQL standard, but it seems to me like the order
should be:

Databases
Tablespaces
Schemas
Objects (tables, indexes, functions, etc.)

And it really isn't hierarchical. As I understand them (based on my
Oracle background), tablespaces, unlike schemas, do NOT create a layer
of data abstraction. That is to say, while the same table name
can exist in multiple schemas, only one instance of a given table name
within a given schema can exist, regardless of what tablespace it is in.

That makes the tablespace a property of an object.

Whether or not two databases can share tablespaces isn't clear to me,
though as a DBA I can think of good reasons why they probably shouldn't
do so, I'm not sure if that is an absolute.

> I have no idea what is the status of that effort right now. You can search the
> archives or I hope this kicks a fresh discussion..:-)

I'm game, though I'm also not ready to lead such a project, probably not
even the discussion on it.
--
Mike Nolan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Matthew Nuzum 2003-06-25 15:22:15 change management
Previous Message Karsten Hilbert 2003-06-25 15:13:37 Re:

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-06-25 15:22:58 Re: compile warnings
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2003-06-25 15:11:35 Re: RServ patch to support multiple slaves (sorta)