RE: Big 7.1 open items

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
>
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > I recommend making a dbname in each directory, then putting the
> > location inside there.
>
> This still seems backwards to me. Why is it better than tablespace
> directory inside database directory?
>
> One significant problem with it is that there's no longer (AFAICS)
> a "default" per-database directory that corresponds to the current
> working directory of backends running in that database. Thus,
> for example, it's not immediately clear where temporary files and
> backend core-dump files will end up. Also, you've just added an
> essential extra level (if not two) to the pathnames that backends will
> use to address files.
>
> There is a great deal to be said for
> ..../database/tablespace/filename

OK,I seem to have gotten the answer for the question
Is tablespace defined per PostgreSQL's database ?

You and Bruce
1) tablespace is per database
Peter seems to have the following idea(?? not sure)
2) database = tablespace
My opinion
3) database and tablespace are relatively irrelevant.
I assume PostgreSQL's database would correspond
to the concept of SCHEMA.

It seems we are different from the first.
Shoudln't we reach an agreement on it in the first place ?

Regards.

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