RE: Big 7.1 open items

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us]
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us]
> > >
> > > The fact is that symlink information is already stored in the file
> > > system. If we store symlink information in the database too, there
> > > exists the ability for the two to get out of sync. My point is that I
> > > think we can _not_ store symlink information in the database,
> and query
> > > the file system using lstat when required.
> > >
> > Hmm,this seems pretty confusing to me.
> > I don't understand the necessity of symlink.
> > Directory tree,symlink,hard link ... are OS's standard.
> > But I don't think they are fit for dbms management.
> >
> > PostgreSQL is a database system of cource. So
> > couldn't it handle more flexible structure than OS's
> > directory tree for itself ?
>
> Yes, but is anyone suggesting a solution that does not work with
> symlinks? If not, why not do it that way?
>

Maybe other solutions have been proposed already because
there have been so many opinions and proposals.

I've felt TABLE(DATA)SPACE discussion has always been
divergent. IMHO,one of the main cause is that various factors
have been discussed at once. Shouldn't we make step by step
consensus in TABLE(DATA)SPACE discussion ?

IMHO,the first step is to decide the syntax of CREATE TABLE
command not to define TABLE(DATA)SPACE.

Comments ?

Regards.

Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp