> > > > Yes, that's about the sum of it. Why not the links? I think
> > > > that it's an elegant way of designing the whole thing.
> > > The only problem with symlinks is, that it does not solve the
> > > "too many files in one directory to give optimal performance"
> > > problem for those that have tons of tables.
> > Is that really a problem on modern operating systems? We could actually
> > hash the file names into directory buckets and access them that way, and
> > have one directory that old symlinks to the hashed files.
>
> imho symlinks is exactly the wrong way to head on this. If the system
> needs to know the true location of something, then it may as well
> refer to that location explicitly. Our storage manager should learn
> how to deal with explicit locations, and we shouldn't implement this
> just as a patch on the table creation code.
>
OK, no symlinks.
-- 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
