Re: SubTablespaces(Recursive) expected behaviour? - Mailing list pgsql-admin

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: SubTablespaces(Recursive) expected behaviour?
Date
Msg-id 2253443.1722183010@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: SubTablespaces(Recursive) expected behaviour?  ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: SubTablespaces(Recursive) expected behaviour?
List pgsql-admin
"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sunday, July 28, 2024, Stepan Neretin <sncfmgg@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi, David. I have read this page several times and have not answered my
>> question. I'm probably not paying attention. Can you, I wanted to quote
>> what I'm missing out on

>  “The location must be an existing, empty directory that is owned by the
> PostgreSQL operating system user.”

Indeed, that doesn't directly answer the question, but I think the
implication is clear: we do not expect a tablespace directory to
contain anything except files that Postgres itself puts there.

I don't actually see the point of the described setup anyway.  There
is zero value that I can see in putting two tablespaces on the same
physical volume --- they won't provide any interesting separation.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-admin by date:

Previous
From: "David G. Johnston"
Date:
Subject: Re: SubTablespaces(Recursive) expected behaviour?
Next
From: "David G. Johnston"
Date:
Subject: Re: SubTablespaces(Recursive) expected behaviour?