| From: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>, 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: | 2002-09-18 04:43:07 |
| Message-ID: | 3D88045B.FD6E337@Yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
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.
'yes' - make it one more GUC and done
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2002-09-18 04:52:58 | Re: [HACKERS] PGXLOG variable worthwhile? |
| Previous Message | Thomas O'Dowd | 2002-09-18 02:02:14 | Re: Help! |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2002-09-18 04:52:58 | Re: [HACKERS] PGXLOG variable worthwhile? |
| Previous Message | Lamar Owen | 2002-09-18 04:36:36 | Re: RPMS for 7.3 beta. |