[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> > > > The symlinks wouldn't do any good for what Bruce had in
> > > > mind anyway (IIRC, he wanted to get useful per-database
> > > > numbers from "du").
> > >
> > > Our database design seems to be in the opposite direction
> > > if it is restricted for the convenience of command calls.
> >
> > Well, I don't see any reason not to use tablespace/database
> > rather than just tablespace. Seems having fewer files in each directory
>
> Once again - ability to use different tablespaces (disks) for tables/indices
> in the same schema. Schemas must not dictate where to store objects <-
> bad design.
I am suggesting this symlink:
ln -s data/base/testdb/myspace /var/myspace/testdb
rather than:
ln -s data/base/testdb/myspace /var/myspace
Tablespaces still sit inside database directories, it is just that it
points to a subdirectory of myspace, rather than myspace itself.
Am I missing something?
>
> > will be a little faster, and if we can make administration easier,
> > why not?
>
> Because you'll not be able use du/ls once we'll implement new smgr anyway.
At least du will work. I doubt we will be putting tables from different
databases in the same file.
>
> And, btw, - for what are we going implement tablespaces? Just to have
> fewer files in each dir ?!
No, I thought it was to split files across drives.
-- 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