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
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 |