Re: Big 7.1 open items

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
>>>> Are you suggesting that doing dbname/locname is somehow harder to do
>>>> that?  If you are, I don't understand why.
>> 
>> It doesn't make it harder, but it still seems pointless to have the
>> extra directory level.  Bear in mind that if we go with all-OID
>> filenames then you're not going to be looking at "loc1" and "loc2"
>> anyway, but at "5938171" and "8583727".  It's not much of a convenience
>> to the admin to see that, so we might as well save a level of directory
>> lookup.

> Just seems easier to have stuff segregates into separate per-db
> directories for clarity.  Also, as directories get bigger, finding a
> specific file in there becomes harder.  Putting 10 databases all in the
> same directory seems bad in this regard.

Huh?  I wasn't arguing against making a db-specific directory below the
tablespace point.  I was arguing against making *another* directory
below that one.

> I don't think we want to be using
> symlinks for tables if we can avoid it.

Agreed, but where did that come from?  None of these proposals mentioned
symlinks for anything but directories, AFAIR.

			regards, tom lane