Greg Stark wrote: > > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Greg Stark wrote: > > > > > > > > I am expecting to hear some bleating about this from people whose > > > > > preferred platforms don't support symlinks ;-). However, if we don't > > > > > > Well, one option would be to have the low level filesystem storage (md.c?) > > > routines implement a kind of symlink themselves. Just a file with a special > > > magic number followed by a path. > > On further contemplation it doesn't seem like using symlinks really ought to > be necessary. It should be possible to drive everything off the catalog tables > while avoidin having the low level filesystem code know anything about them. > > Instead of having the low level code fetch the pg_* records themselves, some > piece of higher level code would do the query and call down to storage layer > to inform it of the locations for everything. It would have to do this on > database initialization and on any subsequent object creation. > > Basically maintain an in-memory hash table of oid -> path, and call down to > the low level code whenever that hash changes. (Or more likely oid->ts_id and > a separate list of ts_id -> path.)
The advantage of symlinks is that an administrator could see how things are laid out from the command line. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
