> > > The symlinks wouldn't do any good for what Bruce had in
> > > mind anyway (IIRC, he wanted to get useful per-database
> > > numbers from "du").
> >
> > Our database design seems to be in the opposite direction
> > if it is restricted for the convenience of command calls.
>
> Well, I don't see any reason not to use tablespace/database
> rather than just tablespace. Seems having fewer files in each directory
Once again - ability to use different tablespaces (disks) for tables/indices
in the same schema. Schemas must not dictate where to store objects <-
bad design.
> will be a little faster, and if we can make administration easier,
> why not?
Because you'll not be able use du/ls once we'll implement new smgr anyway.
And, btw, - for what are we going implement tablespaces? Just to have
fewer files in each dir ?!
Vadim
