From: | Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_xlog -> pg_xjournal? |
Date: | 2015-06-01 20:42:47 |
Message-ID: | CAASwCXe-6z1r2_ShNTVUUtaYAq9f8tttBgOWLuvikpsKAdYLrQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:17 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> If we symlink pg_xlog, then it will still trip up anyone who does "rm
> -rf *log*/*" or deletes files directly from inside the directory, both
> of which I've seen. Deleting the directory itself is comparatively rare
> in my experience. So for this do to any good, we'd have to plan to
> (eventally, at least) get rid of the symlinks. Do links work the same
> on Windows, btw?
Hm, I don't agree the symlink version wouldn't do *any* good.
I think it's a good step since it solves the rm -rf pg_xlog problem,
and it solves the problem if a sysadmin uses /usr/bin/du to
find large directories suitable for deletion, as it won't show
symlinks.
> Also ... if we were to rename it, it should be "pg_wal" or "pg_xact".
> Please let's not add yet another term for the WAL.
+1
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-06-01 20:48:16 | Re: RFC: Remove contrib entirely |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2015-06-01 20:26:20 | Re: RFC: Remove contrib entirely |