> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > ...
> > Or we could continue to use symlinks, and just create them ourselves in
> > the backend.
>
> But you'd still need some built-in understanding about where the table
> is Really Supposed To Be, because you'd need to be able to create and
> delete the symlinks on the fly when the table grows past a 1-Gb segment
> boundary (or is shrunk back again by vacuum!).
>
> AFAICS, a reasonable solution still requires storing a location path
> for each table --- so you might as well just use that path directly.
Makes sense. The only advantage to symlinks is that you could use that
information in places you need it, and for normal access use the
symlinks. You wouldn't have to carry around that info as much.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
