| From: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | AW: Big 7.1 open items |
| Date: | 2000-06-21 09:49:26 |
| Message-ID: | 219F68D65015D011A8E000006F8590C605BA5981@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> The current discussion of symlinks is focusing on using directory
> symlinks, not file symlinks, to represent/implement tablespace layout.
If that is the only issue for the symlinks, I think it would be sufficient
to
put the files in the correct subdirectories. The dba can then decide
whether he wants to mount filsystems directly to the disired location,
or create a symlink. I do not see an advantage in creating a symlink
in the backend, since the dba has to create the filesystems anyway.
fs: data
fs: data/base/...../extent1
link: data/base/...../extent2 -> /data/extent2
...
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB | 2000-06-21 12:48:43 | AW: Big 7.1 open items |
| Previous Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2000-06-21 09:37:02 | RE: Big 7.1 open items |