RE: Big 7.1 open items - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Hiroshi Inoue
Subject RE: Big 7.1 open items
Date
Msg-id EKEJJICOHDIEMGPNIFIJAEADCCAA.Inoue@tpf.co.jp
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Big 7.1 open items  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Big 7.1 open items  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
RE: Big 7.1 open items  (Kaare Rasmussen <kar@webline.dk>)
List pgsql-hackers
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us]
> 
> JanWieck@t-online.de (Jan Wieck) writes:
> >     There are also disadvantages.
> 
> >         You can run out of space even if there  are  plenty  GB's
> >         free  on  your  disks.   You  have  to create tablespaces
> >         explicitly.
> 
> Not to mention the reverse: if I read this right, you have to suck
> up your GB's long in advance of actually needing them.  That's OK
> for a machine that's dedicated to Oracle ... not so OK for smaller
> installations, playpens, etc.
>

I've had an anxiety about the way like Oracle's preallocation.
It had not been easy for me to estimate the extent size in
Oracle.  Maybe it would lose the simplicity of environment
settings which is one of the biggest advantage of PostgreSQL.
It seems that we should also provide not_preallocated DATAFILE
when many_tables_in_a_file storage manager is introduced.

Regards.

Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue@tpf.co.jp 


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: planner question re index vs seqscan
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Big 7.1 open items