Re: Physical Database Configuration
От | nolan@celery.tssi.com |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Physical Database Configuration |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20030625151942.16976.qmail@celery.tssi.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Physical Database Configuration ("Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in>) |
Ответы |
Re: Physical Database Configuration
Re: Physical Database Configuration |
Список | pgsql-general |
> Well, correct solution is to implement tablespaces on which objects like > databases, tables and indexes can be put. I've not looked at the SQL standard, but it seems to me like the order should be: Databases Tablespaces Schemas Objects (tables, indexes, functions, etc.) And it really isn't hierarchical. As I understand them (based on my Oracle background), tablespaces, unlike schemas, do NOT create a layer of data abstraction. That is to say, while the same table name can exist in multiple schemas, only one instance of a given table name within a given schema can exist, regardless of what tablespace it is in. That makes the tablespace a property of an object. Whether or not two databases can share tablespaces isn't clear to me, though as a DBA I can think of good reasons why they probably shouldn't do so, I'm not sure if that is an absolute. > I have no idea what is the status of that effort right now. You can search the > archives or I hope this kicks a fresh discussion..:-) I'm game, though I'm also not ready to lead such a project, probably not even the discussion on it. -- Mike Nolan
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: