On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> It was pretty clear that Thomas' original patch lost the vote, or
> would have lost if we'd bothered to hold a formal vote.
Hasn't there just been a formal vote on this?
> I don't
> see anyone arguing against the notion of making XLOG location more
> easily configurable --- it was just the notion of making it depend
> on environment variables that scared people.
And it's obvious it was centred on the use of an environment variable from the
subject line, it's still got PGXLOG in capitals in it.
--
Nigel J. Andrews