> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner@hub.org [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@hub.org]On
> Behalf Of Peter Eisentraut
>
> Tom Lane writes:
>
> > I don't think it's a good idea to have to consult pg_tablespace to find
> > out where a table actually is --- I think the pathname (or smgr access
> > token as Ross would call it ;-)) ought to be determinable from just the
> > pg_class entry.
>
> That's why I suggested the table space oid. That would be readily
> available from pg_class.
>
It seems to me that the following 1)2) has always been mixed up.
IMHO,they should be distinguished clearly.
1) Where the table is stored Currently PostgreSQL relies on relname -> filename mapping rule to access *existent*
relationsand doesn't have this information in its database. Our(Tom,Ross,me) proposal is to keep the
information(token)in pg_class and provide a standard transactional control mechanism for the change of table file
allocation.By doing it we would be able to be free from table allocation(naming) rule. Isn't it a kind of thing why
wehaven't had it from the first ?
2) Where to store the table Yes,TABLE(DATA)SPACE should encapsulate this concept.
I want the decision about 1) first. Ross has already tried it without
2).
Comments ?
As for 2) every one seems to have each opinion and the discussion
has always been divergent. Please don't discard 1) together.
Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue@tpf.co.jp
