Re: For the ametures. (related to "Are we losing momentum?")
От | Kevin Brown |
---|---|
Тема | Re: For the ametures. (related to "Are we losing momentum?") |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20030418220619.GO1833@filer обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: For the ametures. (related to "Are we losing momentum?") (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: For the ametures. (related to "Are we losing momentum?")
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > > I'm not proposing that we return to calling the individual files (or > > the database they reside in) by name, only that we include a "type" > > identifier in the path so that objects of different types can be > > located on different spindles if the DBA so desires. > > This has been proposed and rejected repeatedly in the tablespace > discussions. It's too limiting; and what's worse, it's not actually > any easier to implement than a proper tablespace facility. It's not? This is a little surprising, since the type information is already stored, is it not? A proper tablespace implementation requires the addition of commands to manage it and table infrastructure to store it. That seems like a bit more work than writing a function to translate an object ID into a type name (and changing CREATE/DROP DATABASE to deal with multiple directories). But since you're much more familiar with the internals, I'll take your word for it. I figured getting the type name of the object would be a relatively easy thing to do, obvious to anyone with any real familiarity with the source. Guess not... -- Kevin Brown kevin@sysexperts.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: