On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 13:09, scott.marlowe wrote:
> On 10 Dec 2002, Rod Taylor wrote:
> > Perhaps a more appropriate rule would be 1 AVD per tablespace? Since
> > PostgreSQL only has a single tablespace at the moment....
>
> But Postgresql can already place different databases on different data
> stores. I.e. initlocation and all. If someone was using multiple SCSI
> cards with multiple JBOD or RAID boxes hanging off of a box, they would
> have the same thing, effectively, that you are talking about.
>
> So, someone out there may well be able to use a multiple process AVD right
> now. Imagine m databases on n different drive sets for large production
> databases.
That's right. I always forget about that. So, it seems, regardless of
the namespace effort, we shouldn't be limiting the number of concurrent
AVD's.
--
Greg Copeland <greg@copelandconsulting.net>
Copeland Computer Consulting
