Re: Table spaces again [was Re: Threaded Sorting] - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Hans-Jürgen Schönig |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Table spaces again [was Re: Threaded Sorting] |
Date | |
Msg-id | 3DA1A6D7.9020702@cybertec.at Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Table spaces again [was Re: Threaded Sorting] ("Shridhar Daithankar" <shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in>) |
List | pgsql-hackers |
> > >>>>Quotas are handled differently on ever platform (if available). >>>> >>>> >>>Yeah. But that's sysadmins responsibility not DBA's. >>> >>> >>Maybe many people ARE the sysadmins of their PostgreSQL box ... >>When developing a database with an open mind people should try to see a >>problem from more than just one perspective. >>Why should anybody just forget about sysdbas??? >> >> > >If DBA is sysadmin, does it make a difference if he learnes about mount/ln or >table spaces. Yes it does. Table spaces are limited to databases but mount/ln >is useful for any general purpose sysadmin work. > >That answers the last point as well, I guess.. > > I agree but still, think of hybrid systems .. > >Agreed. Perfect point and I didn't thought of it. > >But it can be done in directory structure as well. Of course it's quite a >deviation from what one thinks as plain old directory structure. But if this is >one point where table spaces win, let's borrow that. There is lot of baggage in >table spaces that can be left out.. > >Besides AFAIU, tablespaces implements quota using data files which are pre- >allocated. Pre-claiming space/resource is the evil of everything likes of >oracle do and runs in exact opposite direction of postgresql philosophy. > >If postgresql has to implement quotas on object, it should do without >preclaiming space. > >Besides if postgresql offers quota on per object basis in directory/object >scheme, I am sure that's far more granular than tablespaces. Choice is good.. > > I didn't think of pre allocation - this is pretty much like Oracle would do it. I was thinking of having a maximum size or something like that. Overhead such as EXTENDS and things like that don't seem too useful for me - that's what a filesystem can be used for. I agree with Tom: If a tablespace was a directory it would be pretty simple and pretty useful. If people could define a maximum size it would be more than perfect. All I think is necessary is: - having data in different, user defined, locations - having the chance to define a maximumsize for that tablespace. Suggestion: CREATE TABLESPACE: Create a "directory" with a certain size (optional) - nothing special here. ALTER TABLESPACE: resize table space. resizing is possible if the amount of data in the tablespace < new size of tablespace DROP TABLESPACE: remove table space. the question in this case is - what about the objects in the tablespace? objects can not always be deleted (just think of inheritance and parent tables) >It's not about devil. It's about revaluating need once again. Especially at the >level of tablespace concept in itself. > > > That's why people should discuss it and think about it :). People want a good implementation or no implementation :). This is Open Source - it is designed to be discussed :). Hans -- *Cybertec Geschwinde u Schoenig* Ludo-Hartmannplatz 1/14, A-1160 Vienna, Austria Tel: +43/1/913 68 09; +43/664/233 90 75 www.postgresql.at <http://www.postgresql.at>, cluster.postgresql.at <http://cluster.postgresql.at>, www.cybertec.at <http://www.cybertec.at>, kernel.cybertec.at <http://kernel.cybertec.at>
pgsql-hackers by date: