Re: [HACKERS] PGXLOG variable worthwhile?
| От | Jan Wieck |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [HACKERS] PGXLOG variable worthwhile? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 3D88045B.FD6E337@Yahoo.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] PGXLOG variable worthwhile? (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
| Список | pgsql-general |
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@Yahoo.com #
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: