> * Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> [010429 20:14] wrote:
>
> > Yes, I like that idea, but the problem is that it is hard to update just
> > one table in the file. You sort of have to update the entire file each
> > time a table changes. That is why I liked symlinks because they are
> > per-table, but you are right that the symlink creation could fail
> > because the new table file was never created or something, leaving the
> > symlink pointing to nothing. Not sure how to address this. Is there a
> > way to update a flat file when a single table changes?
>
> Sort of, if that flat file is in the form of:
> 123456;"tablename "
> 000033;"another_table "
>
> ie, each line is a fixed length.
>
Yea, after I posted, I realized that using a fixed length line would
solve the problem. The larger problem, though, I think, is concurrency.
Can multiple backends update that single flat file reliably? I suppose
they could do append-only to the file, and you could grab the last
entry, but again, sometimes it is rolled back, so I think there has to
be a way to clean it up.
Of course, Tom or Vadim may come along and say this is a stupid idea,
and we would be done discussing it. :-)
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us 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
