Deprecating -i,--tablespace-index? about osm2pgsql HOT 5 CLOSED

I'm fine with deprecating it.

from osm2pgsql.

I used it back when SSDs on hosted boxes were small, having indexes on SSD only and the rest still on "rotating rust" aka classic HDDs.

But that was many, many years ago already so I won't miss it at all if it were removed

from osm2pgsql.

I used it back when SSDs on hosted boxes were small, having indexes on SSD only and the rest still on "rotating rust" aka classic HDDs.

But that was many, many years ago already so I won't miss it at all if it were removed

@hholzgra. If I understand @joto well, the discussion here is only to remove the first -i,--tablespace-index option, not the four other options, so it will still be possible to separate out the tablespaces used for indexes from the ones for tables. Of course, once pgsql output is finally put to rest in osmpgsql, only two options for "slim a.k.a. middle" remain, further cleaning up the different options.

I do use the "slim" tablespaces options, and do think there is still some limited value for being able to separate out the tablespace for indexes versus the tables they are associated with.

from osm2pgsql.

@mboeringa Exactly right. I am only trying to clean up the command line options bit by bit, I don't want to take away any functionality. Most users will never fiddle around with tablespaces, but there will always be cases where you need them and we will continue to support them.

from osm2pgsql.

I suspect that the option is used rarely enough that it doesn't make much of a difference to remove the -i option. Nominatim does offer to configure tablespaces but only in the fine grained version.

On the other hand, I don't see that keeping it adds much confusion either. It may be a bit tricky in the implementation but the semantics are clear regarding the interaction with the fine-grained parameters.

from osm2pgsql.