Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E31A475C45
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Sun, 17 Nov 2002 17:47:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: from davinci.ethosmedia.com (davinci.ethosmedia.com [209.10.40.250])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E97A3475AD7
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Sun, 17 Nov 2002 17:47:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [63.195.55.98] (account <josh@agliodbs.com>)
	by davinci.ethosmedia.com (CommuniGate Pro WebUser 3.5.9)
	with HTTP id 1830006; Sun, 17 Nov 2002 14:51:35 -0800
From: "Josh Berkus" <josh@agliodbs.com>
Subject: Re: Trees: maintaining pathnames
To: Dan Langille <dan@langille.org>, pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro Web Mailer v.3.5.9
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 14:51:35 -0800
Message-ID: <web-1830006@davinci.ethosmedia.com>
In-Reply-To: <20021117112520.C8127-200000@nezlok.unixathome.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517
X-Archive-Number: 200211/253
X-Sequence-Number: 10395

Dan,

> My existing tree implementation reflects the files contained on disk.
>  The
> full pathname to a particlar file is obtained from the path to the
> parent
> directory.  I am now considering putting this information into a
> field in
> the table.
<snip>
> Suggestions, comment, open ridicule, most welcome.  thanks.

This is a fine implementation using the adjacency list model of tree
design.  However, I think you may find that the string-based tree
implementation in /contrib/ltree is more suited to your purposes, and
easier to maintain.

-Josh Berkus