Re: Physical Database Configuration - Mailing list pgsql-general

From nolan@celery.tssi.com
Subject Re: Physical Database Configuration
Date
Msg-id 20030625151942.16976.qmail@celery.tssi.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Physical Database Configuration  ("Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in>)
Responses Re: Physical Database Configuration  (Jonathan Bartlett <johnnyb@eskimo.com>)
Re: Physical Database Configuration  (Fernando Schapachnik <fernando@mecon.gov.ar>)
List pgsql-general
> Well, correct solution is to implement tablespaces on which objects like
> databases, tables and indexes can be put.

I've not looked at the SQL standard, but it seems to me like the order
should be:

Databases
   Tablespaces
      Schemas
         Objects (tables, indexes, functions, etc.)

And it really isn't hierarchical.  As I understand them (based on my
Oracle background), tablespaces, unlike schemas, do NOT create a layer
of data abstraction.   That is to say, while the same table name
can exist in multiple schemas, only one instance of a given table name
within a given schema can exist, regardless of what tablespace it is in.

That makes the tablespace a property of an object.

Whether or not two databases can share tablespaces isn't clear to me,
though as a DBA I can think of good reasons why they probably shouldn't
do so, I'm not sure if that is an absolute.

> I have no idea what is the status of that effort right now. You can search the
> archives or I hope this kicks a fresh discussion..:-)

I'm game, though I'm also not ready to lead such a project, probably not
even the discussion on it.
--
Mike Nolan


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Stephan Szabo
Date:
Subject: Re: Inheritance & Indexes
Next
From: Karsten Hilbert
Date:
Subject: Re: