> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> First, we keep the standard PostgreSQL directory the way it has always >> been with template0, template1, pg_xlog, pg_clog, etc. in the same >> place. >> We can refer to this as the "system" directory. This makes sense because >> all the system level stuff is there. User databases should be >> discouraged >> from the system, and users should be encouraged to create and use >> separate >> tablespaces for their databases. > > Why? > > This seems to me to be pushing complexity onto users whether they > want/need it or not. I think that only a relatively small number of > installations will have any use for tablespaces, and we should not > try to coerce average users into worrying about them.
I forgot to specify that tablepaces should be on separate volumes. (sorry) If all they have is one volume, no worries, but instructing the use of alternate volumes for system and data will improve performance by separating WAL and data operations. Tablespaces are a familiar construct to experienced DBAs who may not be familiar with PostgreSQL. PostgreSQL being similar to other databases will have it better "make sense" to new users. Users are primarily, if not stupid, ignorant. They will read the absolute minimum needed to achieve a goal and little else. I say this with the utmost respect, because I and probably everyone else on this group is guilty of the same thing. So, the "preferred" installation procedure, i.e. the one with the easy to follow directions, should showcase features the user should know, and leave the user in a good place. IMHO, the user's database on one volume and pg_xlog on another is a better starting place. BTW: Is there a public spec on what will be tablespace compatible and how? For instance: will is be possible to create a table on a separate tablespace than the DB? Will it be possible to create an index on a separate tablespace than the table? ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend