Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > I think Jim has some very good points here. What does his
> > implementation lack?
>
> Forward compatibility to a future tablespace implementation.
> If we do this, we'll be stuck with supporting this feature set,
> not to mention this syntax; neither of which have garnered any
> support from the assembled hackers.
>
> I went back to look at TODO.detail/tablespaces, and find that it's
> badly in need of editing. Much of the discussion there is
> back-and-forthing about the question of naming files by OID,
Agreed.
> which is now a done deal. But it is clear that people wanted to
> have a notion of tablespaces as objects somewhat orthogonal to
> databases. I didn't see any support for hard-wiring tablespace
> assignments on the basis of "tables here, indexes there", either.
OK, I read through it. Wow, it was long. Exactly what is missing from
the patch that he can add? It is mostly having tablespaces independent
of databases? There were so many proposals in there I am not sure
where it all landed. The cleaned out version link to from the TODO list
should be slightly easier reading, but it clearly goes all over the
place. I can try and read through it and distill down the ideas if that
would help.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us 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