Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Tablespaces

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of
> Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD
> Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 1:20 AM
> To: jearl(at)bullysports(dot)com; tswan(at)idigx(dot)com
> Cc: Bruce Momjian; Tom Lane; Greg Stark;
> pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org; PostgreSQL Win32 port list
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] Tablespaces
>
>
>
> > First of all, symlinks are a pretty popular "feature."
> Even Windows
> > supports what would be needed. Second of all, PostgreSQL
> will still
> > run on OSes without symlinks, tablespaces won't be available, but
> > PostgreSQL will still run. Since we are all using
> PostgreSQL without
>
> My idea for platforms that don't support symlinks would be to
> simply create a tblspaceoid directory inplace instead of the
> symlink (maybe throw a warning). My feeling is, that using
> the same syntax on such platforms is important,
> but actual distribution is not (since they will most likely
> be small systems).

I know of bot SQL*Server and Oracle database systems on Win32 with
hundreds of millions of rows and many hundreds of gigabytes of space.
These are production systems, run by fortune 500 companies.

I expect that PostgreSQL systems on Win32 will have multiple 64-bit CPU
systems, with 16 gigs or so of ram, and a terabyte of disk, not long
after 7.5 is released (unless problems with PostgreSQL on that platform
turn up).

Is that what you have in mind when you say "small systems"?

I expect that one year after release, there will be ten times as many
PostgreSQL systems on Win32 as all combined versions now on UNIX flavors
(of course, that is a SWAG, but I think a sound one)