| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Tablespaces |
| Date: | 2004-03-03 03:52:49 |
| Message-ID: | 7928.1078285969@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-hackers-win32 |
Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> How about allowing the specification on schemas and databases of
> different default tablespaces for TEMP, TABLE and INDEX?? Is there any
> point to that?
TEMP tables are not local to any particular schema, so it wouldn't make
sense to have a schema-level default for their placement.
The other five combinations are at least theoretically sensible, but
do we need 'em all? It seems to me that a reasonable compromise is to
offer database-level default tablespaces for TEMP, TABLE, and INDEX,
ignoring the schema level. This is simple and understandable, and if
you don't like it, you're probably the kind of guy who will want to
override it per-table anyway ...
BTW, another dimension to think about is where TOAST tables and their
indexes will get placed.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2004-03-03 03:53:40 | Re: IN and ANY |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2004-03-03 03:44:40 | Re: [ADMIN] Schema comparisons |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-03-03 04:22:23 | Win32 regression fix |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2004-03-03 03:35:28 | Re: Tablespaces |