| From: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PGXLOG variable worthwhile? |
| Date: | 2002-09-25 19:17:42 |
| Message-ID: | 3D920BD6.F4DE033F@Yahoo.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"scott.marlowe" wrote:
> Having a FILE called pg_xlog isn't the fix here, it's the result of the
> fix, which is to take all the steps of moving the pg_xlog directory and
> put them into one script file the user doesn't need to understand to do it
> right. I.e. idiot proof the system as much as possible.
And your script/program cannot modify postgresql.conf instead of
creating a new file?
Please remember: "A fool with a tool is still a fool". You can
provide programs and scripts as many as you want. There have
allways been these idiots who did stuff like truncating pg_log
...
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 | Bruce Momjian | 2002-09-25 19:18:52 | Re: PGXLOG variable worthwhile? |
| Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2002-09-25 19:07:12 | Re: PGXLOG variable worthwhile? |