Re: Big 7.1 open items

> "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
> > It seems that we should also provide not_preallocated DATAFILE
> > when many_tables_in_a_file storage manager is introduced.
> 
> Several people in this thread have been talking like a
> single-physical-file storage manager is in our future, but I can't
> recall anyone saying that they were going to do such a thing or even
> presenting reasons why it'd be a good idea.
> 
> Seems to me that physical file per relation is considerably better for
> our purposes.  It's easier to figure out what's going on for admin and
> debug work, it means less lock contention among different backends
> appending concurrently to different relations, and it gives the OS a
> better shot at doing effective read-ahead on sequential scans.
> 
> So why all the enthusiasm for multi-tables-per-file?

No idea.  I thought Vadim mentioned it, but I am not sure anymore.  I
certainly like our current system.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026