> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner@hub.org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@hub.org]On Behalf Of Chris Bitmead
>
> "Ross J. Reedstrom" wrote:
>
> > The important point I think is that tablespaces are about physical
> > storage/namespace, and SCHEMA are about logical namespace: it would make
> > sense for tables from multiple schema to live in the same tablespace,
> > as well as tables from one schema to be stored in multiple tablespaces.
>
> If we accept that argument (which sounds good) then wouldn't we have...
>
> data/base/db1/table1 -> ../../../tablespace/ts1/db1.table1
> data/base/db1/table2 -> ../../../tablespace/ts1/db1.table2
> data/tablespace/ts1/db1.table1
> data/tablespace/ts1/db1.table2
>
Hmm,is above symlinking business really preferable just because
it is possible ? Why do we have to be dependent upon directory
tree representation when we handle db structure ?
Regards.
Hiroshi Inoue
Inoue@tpf.co.jp
