At 12:27 PM 6/21/00 +1000, Chris Bitmead wrote:
>Tom Lane wrote:
>> Some unhappiness was raised about
>> depending on symlinks for this function, but I didn't hear one single
>> concrete reason not to do it, nor an alternative design.
>
>Are symlinks portable?
In today's world? Yeah, I think so.
My only unhappiness has hinged around the possibility that a new
storage scheme might temp folks to toss aside the sgmr abstraction,
or weaken it.
It doesn't appear that this will happen.
Given an adequate sgmr abstraction, it doesn't really matter what
low-level model is adopted in some sense (i.e. other models might
become available, the implemented model might get replaced, etc -
without breaking backends).
Obviously we'll all be using the default model for some time, maybe
forever, but if mistakes are made maintaining the smgr abstraction
means that replacements are possible. Or kinky substitutes like
working with DAFS.
- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com> Nature photos, on-line guides, Pacific Northwest Rare Bird Alert
Serviceand other goodies at http://donb.photo.net.
