Re: Hot standby and synchronous replication status

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Hot standby and synchronous replication status
Date: 2009-08-13 17:28:05
Message-ID: 25579.1250184485@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> While we're at this, can we add xlog_location as a file-location GUC?

That was proposed and rejected quite a long time ago. We don't *want*
people to be able to "just change a GUC" and have their xlog go
somewhere else, because of the foot-gun potential. You need to be sure
that the existing WAL files get moved over when you do something like
that, and the GUC infrastructure isn't up to ensuring that.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pierre Frédéric Caillaud 2009-08-13 17:34:09 Re: COPY speedup
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2009-08-13 17:17:44 Re: surprising trigger/foreign key interaction