Re: [HACKERS] PGXLOG variable worthwhile?

Nigel J. Andrews wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Sep 2002, 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?
> >
> > If I can get a few 'yes' votes I will add it to TODO and do it for 7.4.
>
> GUC instead of -X or PGXLOG : yes.
>
> However, how is that going to work if tablespaces are introduced in 7.4. Surely
> the same mechanism for tablespaces would be used for pg_xlog. As the tablespace
> mechanism hasn't been determined yet, as far as I know, wouldn't it be best to
> see what happens there before creating the TODO item for the log?

Good point. How about:

Allow pg_xlog to be moved without symlinks

That is vague enough. Added to TODO.

--
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