At Tue, 23 Apr 2019 14:53:28 +0900, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote in <20190423055328.gk2...@paquier.xyz> > On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 01:33:39PM +0900, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote: > > I think this is rahter a testing or debugging feature. This can > > be apply to all paths, so the variable might be "path_prefix" or > > something more generic than tablespace_chroot. > > > > Does it make sense? > > A GUC which enforces object creation does not sound like a good idea > to me, and what you propose would still bite back, for example two > local nodes could use the same port, but a different Unix socket > path.
It's not necessarily be port number, but I agree that it's not a good idea. I prefer allowing relative paths for tablespaces. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center