Re: Big 7.1 open items
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "Philip J. Warner" <pjw@rhyme.com.au>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>, Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck@yahoo.com>, "Ross J. Reedstrom" <reedstrm@rice.edu>, Don Baccus <dhogaza@pacifier.com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org>
Date: 2000-06-20T14:45:38Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Philip J. Warner" <pjw@rhyme.com.au> writes: > If these are true, then why not create a utility (eg. pg_update_symlinks) > that creates the relevant symlinks. It does not matter if they are > outdated, from an integrity point of view, and for the most part they can > be automatically maintained. Internally, postgresql can totally ignore them. What? I think you are confusing a couple of different things. IIRC, at one time when we were just thinking about ALTER TABLE RENAME, there was a suggestion that the "real" table files be named by table OID, and that there be symlinks to those files named by logical table name as a crutch (:-)) for admins who wanted to know which table file was which. That could be handled as you've sketched above, but I think the whole proposal has fallen by the wayside anyway. The current discussion of symlinks is focusing on using directory symlinks, not file symlinks, to represent/implement tablespace layout. regards, tom lane