Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Big 7.1 open items

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>, "'Peter Eisentraut'" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "'Hiroshi Inoue'" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, 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: 2000-06-27 21:19:31
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Well, that would allow us to mix database files in the same directory,
> if we wanted to do that.  My opinion it is better to keep databases in
> separate directories in each tablespace for clarity and performance
> reasons.

One reason not to do that is that we'd still have to special-case
the system-wide relations.  If it's just tablespace and OID in the
path, then the system-wide rels look just the same as any other rel
as far as the low-level stuff is concerned.  That would be nice.

My feeling about the "clarity and performance" issue is that if a
dbadmin wants to keep track of database contents separately, he can
put different databases' tables into different tablespaces to start
with.  If he puts several tables into one tablespace, he's saying
he doesn't care about distinguishing their space usage.  There's
no reason for us to force an additional level of directory lookup
to be done whether the admin wants it or not.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2000-06-27 21:23:49
Subject: Re: Big 7.1 open items
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2000-06-27 21:16:49
Subject: Re: Big 7.1 open items

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group