| From: | "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Jan Wieck" <JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>, "Ross J(dot) Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu>, "Don Baccus" <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> |
| Subject: | RE: Big 7.1 open items |
| Date: | 2000-06-19 16:17:14 |
| Message-ID: | EKEJJICOHDIEMGPNIFIJGECCCCAA.Inoue@tpf.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us]
>
> The fact is that symlink information is already stored in the file
> system. If we store symlink information in the database too, there
> exists the ability for the two to get out of sync. My point is that I
> think we can _not_ store symlink information in the database, and query
> the file system using lstat when required.
>
Hmm,this seems pretty confusing to me.
I don't understand the necessity of symlink.
Directory tree,symlink,hard link ... are OS's standard.
But I don't think they are fit for dbms management.
PostgreSQL is a database system of cource. So
couldn't it handle more flexible structure than OS's
directory tree for itself ?
Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Adam Haberlach | 2000-06-19 16:31:43 | Warning question |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2000-06-19 16:15:02 | On examine_subclass |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Adam Haberlach | 2000-06-19 16:26:53 | Quick questions regarding patches (and BeOS patch Q) |
| Previous Message | The Hermit Hacker | 2000-06-19 16:09:17 | Re: Quick questions regarding patches (and BeOS patch Q) |