> At 12:28 AM 6/19/00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> >Being *able* to use filesystem commands to see/fix what's going on is a
> >good thing, particularly from a development/debugging standpoint.
>
> Of course it's a crutch for development, but outside of development
> circles few users will know how to use the OS in regard to the
> database.
>
> Assuming PG takes off. Of course, if it remains the realm of the
> dedicated hard-core hacker, I'm wrong.
>
> I have nothing against preserving the ability to use filesystem
> commands if there's no significant costs inherent with this approach.
> I'd view the breaking of smgr abstraction as a significant cost (though
> I agree with Ross that it Bruce's proposal shouldn't require that, I
> asked my question to flush Bruce out, if you will, because he's
> devoted to a particular outside-the-db management model).
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.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026