| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
| Cc: | "'Bruce Momjian'" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: AW: Proposed WAL changes |
| Date: | 2001-03-07 22:15:59 |
| Message-ID: | 14219.984003359@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> writes:
> So, it's better to leave archdir in pg_control now - if we'll
> decide that GUC is better place then we'll just ignore archdir
> in pg_control. But if it will be better to have it in pg_control
> then we'll not be able to add it there.
But what possible reason is there for keeping it in pg_control?
AFAICS that would just mean that we'd need special code for setting it,
instead of making use of all of Peter's hard work on GUC.
We should be moving away from special-case parameter mechanisms, not
inventing new ones without darn good reasons for them.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-03-07 22:30:08 | Re: Performance monitor |
| Previous Message | Nathan Myers | 2001-03-07 21:58:25 | Re: Proposed WAL changes |