Re: Thanks, naming conventions, and count()

On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> >
> > doesn't this defeat the reasons for going to numerics? is there a reason
> > why its such a difficult thing to do a SELECT oid on pg_database and
> > pg_class to get this information? that's what I've been doing when I need
> > to know *shrug*
>
> Yes, but you can't do that if you can't start the database or can't
> connect for some reason. If people don't think it is worthwhile, we can
> delete the TODO item.

Okay, what does being able to ls the directory give you if you can't start
the database? the only thing I do it for is to figure out whicih tables
are taking up so much disk space, or which databases ...

> For example, when someone has trouble figuring out which directory is
> which database, they can just ls and look at the symlinks. Seems like
> a nice feature.

Ya, but I thought that the reason for going numeric had to do with being
transaction safe ... something about being able to safely RENAME a table,
if my recollection remotely comes close ... as soon as you start throwing
around symlinks, do we break that once more? what about if someone wants
to physically move a table to a seperate file system, which is something
that has been suggested as a way around the fact that all files are in the
same subdirectory? You have a symlink to the symlink?

I don't know the answers to these questions, which is why I'm asking them
... if this is something safe to do, and doesn't break us again, then
sounds like a good idea to me too ...