> Thanks guys...
>
> I was able to do employ the symbolic link trick to get my old
> filesystems set up for use with 7.1's way of doing things and am glad
> I don't /really/ need to remember what the heck is that mounted on
> /opt/postgresql/data/base/19162, etc..
>
> This would have been less of a PITB if it had been more obvious in the
> v7.1 notes that something like the naming change was going to happen
> and what the impact was going to be. I went back last night and
> looked again and -- for the life of me -- still didn't see anything
> except that one-line mention in the HISTORY which (obviously) didn't
> raise any flags. I was only too happy to dump all the databases if it
> meant that longer rows were going to be available but I sure felt
> blindsided by this new naming scheme. At least there's a solution.
> Thanks again.
I totally agree with you here. Numeric file names are a pain for
administrators that want to do database accounting at the file system
level. Surprisingly, we haven't had too many people complain so it
seems there aren't as many people doing this as I thought.
--
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, Pennsylvania 19026
