On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> >>Does anyone object to extending the grammar to allow this?
> >
> > Yes. This is horribly ugly, and I suspect that you cannot do it
> > without making TABLESPACE a fully-reserved word.
>
> I note that this seems to be the Oracle syntax:
>
> CONSTRAINT PK_Stock PRIMARY KEY (Company) USING INDEX TABLESPACE
> Appl_Indexes
>
> http://www.siue.edu/~dbock/cmis564/otext4.htm
>
> Since we stole tablespaces from Oracle, maybe we should make them work
> the same?
I never really considered oracle's implementation of tablespaces when I
worked on tablespaces. The database default tablespace seems similar to
Oracle's SYSTEM tablespace. I'm not sure if they use a global tablespace
like we do.
I also cannot find any information about Oracle placing object's in their
parent's table space if a tablespace isn't specified.
Tablespaces in Oracle also do raw block device stuff, which we obviously
don't.
I'd dare say that tablespaces in Oracle don't use symlinks either :-)
Gavin
