Re: Big 7.1 open items

From: Chris Bitmead <chrisb(at)nimrod(dot)itg(dot)telstra(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Big 7.1 open items
Date: 2000-06-22 03:43:56
Message-ID: 39518B7C.F76108FD@nimrod.itg.telecom.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > > The symlink solution where the actual symlink location is not stored
> > > in the database is certainly abstract. We store that info in the file
> > > system, which is where it belongs. We only query the symlink location
> > > when we need it for database location dumping.
> >
> > how would that work? would pg_dump dump the tablespace locations or not?
> >
>
> pg_dump would recreate a CREATE TABLESPACE command:
>
> printf("CREATE TABLESPACE %s USING %s", loc, symloc);
>
> where symloc would be SELECT symloc(loc) and return the value into a
> variable that is used by pg_dump. The backend would do the lstat() and
> return the value to the client.

I'm wondering if pg_dump should store the location of the tablespace. If
your machine dies, you get a new machine to re-create the database, you
may not want the tablespace in the same spot. And text-editing a
gigabyte file would be extremely painful.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2000-06-22 03:46:52 Re: Makefile.global is kind of a pain
Previous Message Tom Lane 2000-06-22 03:32:19 Memory management revisions, take 2

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2000-06-22 04:03:27 Re: Big 7.1 open items
Previous Message Tom Lane 2000-06-22 03:27:10 Re: Big 7.1 open items