Re: PGXLOG variable worthwhile?

Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > In fact, I tried to open a dialog with you on this issue several times,
> > but when I got no reply, I had to remove PGXLOG. If we had continued
> > discussion, we might have come up with the GUC compromise.
>
> Ya know, I'm sitting back and reading this, and other threads, and
> assimilating what is being bantered about, and start to think that its
> time to cut back on the gatekeepers ...
>
> Thomas implemented an option that he felt was useful, and that doesn't
> break anything inside of the code ... he provided 2 methods of being able
> to move the xlog's to another location (through command line and
> environment variable, both of which are standard methods for doing such in
> server software) ... but, because a small number of ppl "voted" that it
> should go away, it went away ...
>
> You don't :vote: on stuff like this ... if you don't like it, you just
> don't use it ... nobody is forcing you to do so. If you think there are
> going to be idiots out here that aren't going to use it right, then you
> document it appropriately, with *strong* wording against using it ...

I understand your thought of reevaluating how we decide things.

However, if you don't accept voting as a valid way to determine if a
patch is acceptible, what method do you suggest? I don't think we want
to go down the road of saying that you can't vote "no" on a feature
addition.

We just rejected a patch today on LIMIT with UPDATE/DELETE via an
informal vote, and I think it was a valid rejection.

--
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