Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> I recommend making a dbname in each directory, then putting the
> location inside there.
This still seems backwards to me. Why is it better than tablespace
directory inside database directory?
One significant problem with it is that there's no longer (AFAICS)
a "default" per-database directory that corresponds to the current
working directory of backends running in that database. Thus,
for example, it's not immediately clear where temporary files and
backend core-dump files will end up. Also, you've just added an
essential extra level (if not two) to the pathnames that backends will
use to address files.
There is a great deal to be said for..../database/tablespace/filename
where .../database/ is the working directory of a backend running in
that database, so that the relative pathname used by that backend to
get to a table is just tablespace/filename. I fail to see any advantage
in reversing the pathname order. If you see one, enlighten me.
regards, tom lane