Sorry for my previous mail. It was posted by my mistake.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us]
>
> "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
> > Now I like neither relname nor oid because it's not sufficient
> > for my purpose.
>
> We should probably not do much of anything with this issue until
> we have a clearer understanding of what we want to do about
> tablespaces and schemas.
>
> My gut feeling is that we will end up with pathnames that look
> something like
>
> .../data/base/DBNAME/TABLESPACE/OIDOFRELATION
>
Schema is a logical concept and irrevant to physical location.
I strongly object your suggestion unless above means *default*
location.
Tablespace is an encapsulation of table allocation and the
name should be irrevant to the location basically. So above
seems very bad for me.
Anyway I don't see any advantage in fixed mapping impleme
ntation. After renewal,we should at least have a possibility to
allocate a specific table in arbitrary separate directory.
Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue@tpf.co.jp