William Garrison wrote: [snip] > A database is not just tables - it is tables and > transaction logs. Why on earth would PostgreSQL put the tables > separately from the transaction logs? Because you told it to. If you want everything on Z:\postgresql you just initdb that location and point PG at that location (or just install there). Tablespaces let you store sets of tables/indexes on specific disks (well, filesystem mount-points). > How is that even possible? Are the > transaction ID numbers shared across databases too? Yes. The PG term for this is a database "cluster" - an installation that shares transaction logs, ids, users. > I need to educate our IT group about this. They setup the SAN volumes > based on my incorrect assumptions about how PostgreSQL worked. It > sounds like, on Windows, we need to just flat-out reinstall postgres and > install it into the Z: drive so that the entire data directory is on the > SAN volume. Installing it to C: and having only parts of the database > on the SAN is not good. Yes. A dump/restore is probably the simplest way of doing this. > P.S. I guess on Unix, you guys all just setup the data directory to be > a hard-link to some other location? Mount a filesystem at the desired point in the directory tree, or just use soft-links. Which is how tablespaces are implemented, as it happens. -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd
