Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
>> But that name can only be a dozen or so characters, contain no slash or
>> other funny characters, etc. That's really poor. Then the alternative is
>> to have an internal name and an external canonical name. Then you have two
>> names to worry about. Also consider that when you store both the table
>> space oid and the internal name in pg_class you create redundant data.
>> What if you rename the table space? Do you leave the internal name out of
>> sync? Then what good is the internal name? I'm just concerned that we are
>> creating at the table space level problems similar to that we're trying to
>> get rid of at the relation and database level.
> Agreed. Having table spaces stored by directories named by oid just
> seems very complicated for no reason.
Huh? He just gave you two very good reasons: avoid Unix-derived
limitations on the naming of tablespaces (and tables), and avoid
problems with renaming tablespaces.
I'm pretty much firmly back in the "OID and nothing but" camp.
Or perhaps I should say "OID, file version, and nothing but",
since we still need a version number to do CLUSTER etc.
regards, tom lane
