Re: Big 7.1 open items

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Some unhappiness was raised about
> > > depending on symlinks for this function, but I didn't hear one single
> > > concrete reason not to do it, nor an alternative design.
> >
> > Are symlinks portable?
> 
> Sure, and if the system loading it can not create the required symlinks
> because the directories don't exist, it can just skip the symlink step.

What I meant is, would you still be able to create tablespaces on
systems without symlinks? That would seem to be a desirable feature.