[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> Tom Lane writes:
>
> > I think Peter was holding out for storing purely numeric tablespace OID
> > and table version in pg_class and having a hardwired mapping to pathname
> > somewhere in smgr. However, I think that doing it that way gains only
> > micro-efficiency compared to passing a "name" around, while using the
> > name approach buys us flexibility that's needed for at least some of
> > the variants under discussion.
>
> But that name can only be a dozen or so characters, contain no slash or
> other funny characters, etc. That's really poor. Then the alternative is
> to have an internal name and an external canonical name. Then you have two
> names to worry about. Also consider that when you store both the table
> space oid and the internal name in pg_class you create redundant data.
> What if you rename the table space? Do you leave the internal name out of
> sync? Then what good is the internal name? I'm just concerned that we are
> creating at the table space level problems similar to that we're trying to
> get rid of at the relation and database level.
Agreed. Having table spaces stored by directories named by oid just
seems very complicated for no reason.
-- 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