Re: Big 7.1 open items
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Big 7.1 open items |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4786.961603815@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Big 7.1 open items (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Big 7.1 open items
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > Yes, that is true. My idea is that they may want to create loc1 and > loc2 which initially point to the same location, but later may be moved. > For example, one tablespace for tables, another for indexes. They may > initially point to the same directory, but later be split. Well, that opens up a completely different issue, which is what about moving tables from one tablespace to another? I think the way you appear to be implying above (shut down the server so that you can rearrange subdirectories by hand) is the wrong way to go about it. For one thing, lots of people don't want to shut down their servers completely for that long, but it's difficult to avoid doing so if you want to move files by filesystem commands. For another thing, the above approach requires guessing in advance --- maybe long in advance --- how you are going to want to repartition your database when it gets too big for your existing storage. The right way to address this problem is to invent a "move table to new tablespace" command. This'd be pretty trivial to implement based on a file-versioning approach: the new version of the pg_class tuple has a new tablespace identifier in it. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: