Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
>>>> Are you suggesting that doing dbname/locname is somehow harder to do
>>>> that? If you are, I don't understand why.
>>
>> It doesn't make it harder, but it still seems pointless to have the
>> extra directory level. Bear in mind that if we go with all-OID
>> filenames then you're not going to be looking at "loc1" and "loc2"
>> anyway, but at "5938171" and "8583727". It's not much of a convenience
>> to the admin to see that, so we might as well save a level of directory
>> lookup.
> Just seems easier to have stuff segregates into separate per-db
> directories for clarity. Also, as directories get bigger, finding a
> specific file in there becomes harder. Putting 10 databases all in the
> same directory seems bad in this regard.
Huh? I wasn't arguing against making a db-specific directory below the
tablespace point. I was arguing against making *another* directory
below that one.
> I don't think we want to be using
> symlinks for tables if we can avoid it.
Agreed, but where did that come from? None of these proposals mentioned
symlinks for anything but directories, AFAIR.
regards, tom lane