Jim Buttafuoco wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
> This is why I choose to use the term "LOCATION" instead of "TABLESPACE"
> . A "LOCATION" is a directory just like Postgresql has today. All the
> patch would add is the ability to put object under different "LOCATION"
> for the same database.
That is a very excellent point. While I am not in the circle that makes these
decisions, I hope your words are heard.
I understand the desire to stay with "standards" and it is impossible to deny
defacto standards, but I do understand that defacto standards have to be
challenged when they don't make sense. A prime example is PostgreSQL's
inner/outer join syntax. It is incompatible with Oracle, but compatible with
the documented SQL standard.
Since "tablespace" is not part of the SQL standard, maybe it makes sense to
define a more specific syntax. The term "location" makes sense, because it is
not a tablespace as Oracle defines it. There is a real danger is trying to
support a different interpretation of an existing "defacto" syntax, in that it
will behave differently than expected.