Re: Big 7.1 open items

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Mount <petermount(at)it(dot)maidstone(dot)gov(dot)uk>
Cc: "'Bruce Momjian'" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Big 7.1 open items
Date: 2000-06-28 15:37:06
Message-ID: 15694.962206626@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Mount <petermount(at)it(dot)maidstone(dot)gov(dot)uk> writes:
>> Yes, the file name will be pg_class_oid.version_id.

> What about segmented files (ie: those over 1Gb)?

Separate issue. Putting the segment number into the filename is
a bad idea because it doesn't give you any way to spread multiple
segments of a big table across filesystems. What's currently being
discussed is paths that look like

something/SEGNO/RELATIONOID.VERSIONID

This lets you control space allocation by making the SEGNO
subdirectories be symlinks to various places.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Oliver Elphick 2000-06-28 15:55:10 Problem creating UNIQUE constraint
Previous Message Karel Zak 2000-06-28 15:36:43 ./configure bug in CVS