RE: Big 7.1 open items

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us]
> 
> 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

OK,I seem to have gotten the answer for the question  Is tablespace defined per PostgreSQL's database ?

You and Bruce  1) tablespace is per database
Peter seems to have the following idea(?? not sure)  2) database = tablespace
My opinion  3) database and tablespace are relatively irrelevant.      I assume PostgreSQL's database would correspond
    to the concept of SCHEMA.
 

It seems we are different from the first.
Shoudln't we reach an agreement on it in the first place ?

Regards.

Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue@tpf.co.jp