From: | "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Bruce Momjian" <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Ross J(dot) Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu> |
Subject: | RE: Big 7.1 open items |
Date: | 2000-06-16 02:43:52 |
Message-ID: | 000201bfd73c$b52873c0$2801007e@tpf.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Sorry for my previous mail. It was posted by my mistake.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
>
> "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > Now I like neither relname nor oid because it's not sufficient
> > for my purpose.
>
> We should probably not do much of anything with this issue until
> we have a clearer understanding of what we want to do about
> tablespaces and schemas.
>
> My gut feeling is that we will end up with pathnames that look
> something like
>
> .../data/base/DBNAME/TABLESPACE/OIDOFRELATION
>
Schema is a logical concept and irrevant to physical location.
I strongly object your suggestion unless above means *default*
location.
Tablespace is an encapsulation of table allocation and the
name should be irrevant to the location basically. So above
seems very bad for me.
Anyway I don't see any advantage in fixed mapping impleme
ntation. After renewal,we should at least have a possibility to
allocate a specific table in arbitrary separate directory.
Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2000-06-16 03:20:16 | RE: Big 7.1 open items |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-06-16 02:24:52 | Re: Big 7.1 open items |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2000-06-16 03:20:16 | RE: Big 7.1 open items |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-06-16 02:24:52 | Re: Big 7.1 open items |