Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr> writes:
> I disagree on the view that being able to restore a database on another
> machine after a crash is an "abstract second-order goal";-)
> ISTM that the core business of a database is to help organize and protect
> data, and it is plainly that. You just wish you won't need it, so it is
> somehow "abstract", but when and if you need it, it is not "second-order"
> at all;-) and it is much too late to redo the dump.
So you create some tablespaces by hand. Big deal. This objection is
not strong enough to justify an ugly, klugy definition for where tables
get created.
If tablespaces had to be associated with physically distinct devices
then there would be merit in your concerns, but they are only
directories and so there is no reason that you cannot create the same
set of tablespace names on your new machine that you had on your old.
regards, tom lane
