Re: AW: Proposed WAL changes

"Vadim Mikheev" <vmikheev@sectorbase.com> writes:
> So, I don't see why to remove archdir from pg_control now.

I didn't like the space consumption.  I think it's important that the
pg_control data fit in less than 512 bytes so that it doesn't cross
physical sectors on the disk.  This reduces the odds of being left
with a corrupted pg_control due to partial write during power loss.

That's a second-order consideration, possibly, but I can see no
redeeming social advantage whatever to having archdir in pg_control
rather than in postgresql.conf where all the other system parameters
live.  Unless you've got one, it's coming out...
        regards, tom lane