| From: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>, Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PGXLOG variable worthwhile? |
| Date: | 2002-09-17 22:34:08 |
| Message-ID: | 1032302049.41792.5.camel@jester |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
I forget, is it possible to make a GUC that cannot be changed during
runtime?
If so, then I vote yes, otherwise, there is a problem if someone tries.
On Tue, 2002-09-17 at 17:07, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
> > Which in this case is what puzzles me. We are only talking about a
> > simple GUC variable after all - I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing
> > it's not a huge effort to add one?
>
> Can we get agreement on that? A GUC for pg_xlog location? Much cleaner
> than -X, doesn't have the problems of possible accidental use, and does
> allow pg_xlog moving without symlinks, which some people don't like?
--
Rod Taylor
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-09-17 22:36:37 | Re: PGXLOG variable worthwhile? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-09-17 22:28:58 | Re: Copy Users? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-09-17 22:36:37 | Re: PGXLOG variable worthwhile? |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-09-17 22:22:47 | Re: [HACKERS] PGXLOG variable worthwhile? |