I just wanted to affirm that Tom's description sounds like av very good
way to go.
You get the best of two worlds with the possibility to tune servers and
yet still
very easy to manage. i.e. If you don't need it, don't mess with it and
everything
will work just fine.
I don't either see any reason not to use the Oracle syntax since it is
so widely used
and it works very well for those of us that also work on Oracle (but in
postgresql
without the extent and storage clauses).
Regards
Stefan
Tom Lane wrote:
> 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
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
