> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD > Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 1:20 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: Bruce Momjian; Tom Lane; Greg Stark; > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; PostgreSQL Win32 port list > Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [HACKERS] Tablespaces > > > > > 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).
I know of bot SQL*Server and Oracle database systems on Win32 with hundreds of millions of rows and many hundreds of gigabytes of space. These are production systems, run by fortune 500 companies. I expect that PostgreSQL systems on Win32 will have multiple 64-bit CPU systems, with 16 gigs or so of ram, and a terabyte of disk, not long after 7.5 is released (unless problems with PostgreSQL on that platform turn up). Is that what you have in mind when you say "small systems"? I expect that one year after release, there will be ten times as many PostgreSQL systems on Win32 as all combined versions now on UNIX flavors (of course, that is a SWAG, but I think a sound one) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
