Tom Lane wrote:
> Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> writes:
> > I disagree on the view that being able to restore a database on another
> > machine after a crash is an "abstract second-order goal";-)
> > ISTM that the core business of a database is to help organize and protect
> > data, and it is plainly that. You just wish you won't need it, so it is
> > somehow "abstract", but when and if you need it, it is not "second-order"
> > at all;-) and it is much too late to redo the dump.
> So you create some tablespaces by hand. Big deal. This objection is
> not strong enough to justify an ugly, klugy definition for where tables
> get created.
> If tablespaces had to be associated with physically distinct devices
> then there would be merit in your concerns, but they are only
> directories and so there is no reason that you cannot create the same
> set of tablespace names on your new machine that you had on your old.
I am confused. I thought Tom's argument was that we shouldn't add an
overly complex tablespace SET variable just to prevent the non-standard
TABLESPACE in CREATE, which I can understand. However, the text above
seems to indicate we don't need an 'ignore tablespace specification if
it does not exist' which I think we do need for cases where we want to
restore on to a system that doesn't use tablespaces or for
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: CSN||Date: 2004-10-25 21:45:57|
|Subject: copy - fields enclosed by, ignore x lines|
|Previous:||From: Greg Stark||Date: 2004-10-25 21:30:52|
|Subject: Re: [PATCHES] ARC Memory Usage analysis|