> "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
> > It seems that we should also provide not_preallocated DATAFILE
> > when many_tables_in_a_file storage manager is introduced.
>
> Several people in this thread have been talking like a
> single-physical-file storage manager is in our future, but I can't
> recall anyone saying that they were going to do such a thing or even
> presenting reasons why it'd be a good idea.
>
> Seems to me that physical file per relation is considerably better for
> our purposes. It's easier to figure out what's going on for admin and
> debug work, it means less lock contention among different backends
> appending concurrently to different relations, and it gives the OS a
> better shot at doing effective read-ahead on sequential scans.
>
> So why all the enthusiasm for multi-tables-per-file?
No idea. I thought Vadim mentioned it, but I am not sure anymore. I
certainly like our current system.
-- 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
