
> First of all, symlinks are a pretty popular "feature."  Even Windows
> supports what would be needed.  Second of all, PostgreSQL will still
> run on OSes without symlinks, tablespaces won't be available, but
> PostgreSQL will still run.  Since we are all using PostgreSQL without

My idea for platforms that don't support symlinks would be to simply create
a tblspaceoid directory inplace instead of the symlink (maybe throw a warning).
My feeling is, that using the same syntax on such platforms is important, 
but actual distribution is not (since they will most likely be small systems).

Andreas

Fri, 5 Mar 2004 10:20:21 +0100
"Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA@spardat.at>
Re: [HACKERS] Tablespaces
Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD wrote:
> 
> > First of all, symlinks are a pretty popular "feature."  Even Windows
> > supports what would be needed.  Second of all, PostgreSQL will still
> > run on OSes without symlinks, tablespaces won't be available, but
> > PostgreSQL will still run.  Since we are all using PostgreSQL without
> 
> My idea for platforms that don't support symlinks would be to simply create
> a tblspaceoid directory inplace instead of the symlink (maybe throw a warning).
> My feeling is, that using the same syntax on such platforms is important, 
> but actual distribution is not (since they will most likely be small systems).

Nice idea --- so you can create tablespaces, but can't specify a
different location for it --- makes sense.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Fri, 5 Mar 2004 09:48:32 -0500 (EST)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] Tablespaces