> pgsql@mohawksoft.com writes:
>> First, we keep the standard PostgreSQL directory the way it has always
>> been with template0, template1, pg_xlog, pg_clog, etc. in the same
>> place.
>> We can refer to this as the "system" directory. This makes sense because
>> all the system level stuff is there. User databases should be
>> discouraged
>> from the system, and users should be encouraged to create and use
>> separate
>> tablespaces for their databases.
>
> Why?
>
> This seems to me to be pushing complexity onto users whether they
> want/need it or not. I think that only a relatively small number of
> installations will have any use for tablespaces, and we should not
> try to coerce average users into worrying about them.
I forgot to specify that tablepaces should be on separate volumes. (sorry)
If all they have is one volume, no worries, but instructing the use of
alternate volumes for system and data will improve performance by
separating WAL and data operations.
Tablespaces are a familiar construct to experienced DBAs who may not be
familiar with PostgreSQL. PostgreSQL being similar to other databases will
have it better "make sense" to new users.
Users are primarily, if not stupid, ignorant. They will read the absolute
minimum needed to achieve a goal and little else. I say this with the
utmost respect, because I and probably everyone else on this group is
guilty of the same thing. So, the "preferred" installation procedure, i.e.
the one with the easy to follow directions, should showcase features the
user should know, and leave the user in a good place. IMHO, the user's
database on one volume and pg_xlog on another is a better starting place.
BTW: Is there a public spec on what will be tablespace compatible and how?
For instance: will is be possible to create a table on a separate
tablespace than the DB? Will it be possible to create an index on a
separate tablespace than the table?
