| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in, Pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] PGXLOG variable worthwhile? |
| Date: | 2002-09-17 21:07:58 |
| Message-ID: | 200209172107.g8HL7wk19181@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
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?
If I can get a few 'yes' votes I will add it to TODO and do it for 7.4.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nigel J. Andrews | 2002-09-17 22:03:58 | Re: [HACKERS] PGXLOG variable worthwhile? |
| Previous Message | James Hall | 2002-09-17 20:58:27 | Copy Users? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-09-17 21:58:33 | Re: RPMS for 7.3 beta. |
| Previous Message | Rod Taylor | 2002-09-17 20:56:12 | Re: RPMS for 7.3 beta. |