Re: [HACKERS] PGXLOG variable worthwhile? - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: [HACKERS] PGXLOG variable worthwhile?
Date
Msg-id 200209172222.g8HMMl427686@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] PGXLOG variable worthwhile?  ("Nigel J. Andrews" <nandrews@investsystems.co.uk>)
List pgsql-general
Nigel J. Andrews wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Sep 2002, 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.
>
> GUC instead of -X or PGXLOG : yes.
>
> However, how is that going to work if tablespaces are introduced in 7.4. Surely
> the same mechanism for tablespaces would be used for pg_xlog. As the tablespace
> mechanism hasn't been determined yet, as far as I know, wouldn't it be best to
> see what happens there before creating the TODO item for the log?

Good point.  How about:

    Allow pg_xlog to be moved without symlinks

That is vague enough.  Added to TODO.

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Justin Clift
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PGXLOG variable worthwhile?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Copy Users?