12.10.2021 17:53, Roman Simakov wrote:
вт, 12 окт. 2021 г. в 13:11, Vlad Khorsun <hv...@optima.com.ua>:
12.10.2021 9:09, Roman Simakov wrote:
пн, 11 окт. 2021 г. в 23:03, Vlad Khorsun <hv...@optima.com.ua
<mailto:hv...@optima.com.ua>>:
...
> But MAIN exactly specifies the database itself. We especially have
removed DEFAULT from the new version of the proposal
because it's
> better to explicitly require a tablespace name in the beginning. Later
we can add defaults.
I hope you don't require to use TABLESPACE clause every time ? If yes,
you
should define defaults anyway ;)
Definitely not.
Hmm... when object is creating and tablespace was not specified, we must
use something
(by default). Obvious choice is to use 'SYSTEM' tablespace, correct ?
For tablespace yes.
For tables, perhaps ?
For indices the default tablespace is a tablespace
of its table.
Sure. I meant tables (and other "independent" objects, if any).
...
After DY's statement re. tablespace per partition, we should consider
ability to create much more tablespaces.
I see no problem with increasing the limit. I see problems with reducing it
(someone may use them). So let's start from a small
number 63. When we implement partitions we increase it more consciously.
I speak about data type used in ODS for tablespace ID. It seems INT should
be used,
not SMALLINT.
You suggest extending it in the PR or we can put it off?
In the PR. It costs nothing but allows to avoid additional ODS changes.
Regards,
Vlad
Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
