From: | nolan(at)celery(dot)tssi(dot)com |
---|---|
To: | shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Physical Database Configuration |
Date: | 2003-06-25 15:19:42 |
Message-ID: | 20030625151942.16976.qmail@celery.tssi.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
> Well, correct solution is to implement tablespaces on which objects like
> databases, tables and indexes can be put.
I've not looked at the SQL standard, but it seems to me like the order
should be:
Databases
Tablespaces
Schemas
Objects (tables, indexes, functions, etc.)
And it really isn't hierarchical. As I understand them (based on my
Oracle background), tablespaces, unlike schemas, do NOT create a layer
of data abstraction. That is to say, while the same table name
can exist in multiple schemas, only one instance of a given table name
within a given schema can exist, regardless of what tablespace it is in.
That makes the tablespace a property of an object.
Whether or not two databases can share tablespaces isn't clear to me,
though as a DBA I can think of good reasons why they probably shouldn't
do so, I'm not sure if that is an absolute.
> I have no idea what is the status of that effort right now. You can search the
> archives or I hope this kicks a fresh discussion..:-)
I'm game, though I'm also not ready to lead such a project, probably not
even the discussion on it.
--
Mike Nolan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Matthew Nuzum | 2003-06-25 15:22:15 | change management |
Previous Message | Karsten Hilbert | 2003-06-25 15:13:37 | Re: |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-06-25 15:22:58 | Re: compile warnings |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-06-25 15:11:35 | Re: RServ patch to support multiple slaves (sorta) |