Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Big 7.1 open items

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>, "'Hiroshi Inoue'" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(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>
Subject: Re: Big 7.1 open items
Date: 2000-06-28 18:37:35
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.21.0006282008220.360-100000@localhost.localdomain (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane writes:

> I've been assuming that we would create a separate tablespace for
> each database, which would be the location of that database's
> system tables.

Then I can't put more than one database into a table space? But I can put
more than one table space into a database? I think that's the wrong
hierarchy. More specifically, I think it's wrong that there is a hierarchy
here at all. Table spaces and databases don't have to know about each
other in any predefined way.

Peter Eisentraut                  Sernanders väg 10:115
peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net                   75262 Uppsala            Sweden

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2000-06-28 18:37:44
Subject: Re: Big 7.1 open items
Previous:From: Karel ZakDate: 2000-06-28 18:26:59
Subject: Re: Misc. consequences of backend memory management changes

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group