mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> This seems to be tablespaces with an off-the-cuff syntax. I'd
>> suggest taking a hard look at Oracle's tablespace facility and
>> seeing how closely we want to duplicate that.
> Sorry I missed the conversation about tablespaces. One of the reasons I think
> Postgres is so usable is because it does not require the use of tablespace
> files. If by tablespace, you mean to declare a directory on a device as a
> tablespace, then cool. If you want to create tablespace "files" ala Oracle, you
> are heading toward an administration nightmare.
No, that's not one of the parts of Oracle's facility that I want to
duplicate.
I think our idea of a tablespace/location/whatchacallit should just be
a directory somewhere that table files can be created in. What seems
worthwhile to steal from Oracle is the syntax that assigns particular
tables to particular tablespaces. If we're compatible on syntax, that
should ease porting of existing applications --- and as far as I can see
at the moment, there's no reason *not* to be compatible at that level.
I don't want to borrow Oracle's ideas about space management semantics,
however.
regards, tom lane
