Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

AW: Big 7.1 open items

From: Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>
To: "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>
Cc: "'Hiroshi Inoue'" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Ross J(dot) Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu>
Subject: AW: Big 7.1 open items
Date: 2000-06-27 13:27:03
Message-ID: 219F68D65015D011A8E000006F8590C605BA5999@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> That'd work fine for me, but I think Bruce was arguing for paths that
> included the database name.  We'd end up with paths that go something
> like
> 	..../data/tablespaces/TABLESPACEOID/RELATIONOID
> (plus some kind of decoration for segment and version), so you'd have
> a hard time telling which files in a tablespace belong to which
> database.

Well ,as long as we have the file per object layout it probably makes sense
to 
have "speaking paths", But I see no real problem with:

..../data/tablespacename/dbname/RELATIONOID[.dat|.idx]

RELATIONOID standing for whatever the consensus will be.
I do not really see an argument for using a tablespaceoid instead of
it's [maybe mangled] name.

Andreas

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Zeugswetter Andreas SBDate: 2000-06-27 13:39:13
Subject: AW: SQL99 functions
Previous:From: Peter MountDate: 2000-06-27 11:38:40
Subject: RE: Proposal: More flexible backup/restore via pg_dump

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group