> That'd work fine for me, but I think Bruce was arguing for paths that
> included the database name. We'd end up with paths that go something
> like
> ..../data/tablespaces/TABLESPACEOID/RELATIONOID
> (plus some kind of decoration for segment and version), so you'd have
> a hard time telling which files in a tablespace belong to which
> database.
Well ,as long as we have the file per object layout it probably makes sense
to
have "speaking paths", But I see no real problem with:
..../data/tablespacename/dbname/RELATIONOID[.dat|.idx]
RELATIONOID standing for whatever the consensus will be.
I do not really see an argument for using a tablespaceoid instead of
it's [maybe mangled] name.
Andreas