On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 13:09, scott.marlowe wrote: > On 10 Dec 2002, Rod Taylor wrote: > > Perhaps a more appropriate rule would be 1 AVD per tablespace? Since > > PostgreSQL only has a single tablespace at the moment.... > > But Postgresql can already place different databases on different data > stores. I.e. initlocation and all. If someone was using multiple SCSI > cards with multiple JBOD or RAID boxes hanging off of a box, they would > have the same thing, effectively, that you are talking about. > > So, someone out there may well be able to use a multiple process AVD right > now. Imagine m databases on n different drive sets for large production > databases.
That's right. I always forget about that. So, it seems, regardless of the namespace effort, we shouldn't be limiting the number of concurrent AVD's. -- Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Copeland Computer Consulting ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
