Re: PGXLOG variable worthwhile? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: PGXLOG variable worthwhile?
Date
Msg-id 200209201807.g8KI7NL22621@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to PGXLOG variable worthwhile?  (Justin Clift <justin@postgresql.org>)
Responses Re: PGXLOG variable worthwhile?  ("Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> ...
> > Why you object to that, and insist it must be an environment variable
> > instead (if that is indeed what you're doing), I'm not sure....
> 
> Well, what I was hoping for, but no longer expect, is that features
> (store xlog in another area) can be implemented and applied without
> rejection by the new gatekeepers. It is a feature that we do not have
> now, and could have implemented for 7.3.
> 
> No need to rehash the points which were not understood in the
> "discussion".
> 
> I have no fundamental objection to extending and replacing
> implementation features as positive contributions to development. I do
> have trouble with folks rejecting features without understanding the
> issues, and sorry, there was a strong thread of "why would anyone want
> to put storage on another device" to the discussion.

I believe the discussion was "Why not use symlinks?"  I think we have
addressed that issue with the GUC variable solution.  Certainly we all
recognize the value of moving storage to another drive.  It is mentioned
in the SGML docs and other places.

In fact, I tried to open a dialog with you on this issue several times,
but when I got no reply, I had to remove PGXLOG.  If we had continued
discussion, we might have come up with the GUC compromise.

> There has been a fundamental shift in the quality and civility of
> discussions over issues over the last couple of years, and I was naively
> hoping that we could work through that on this topic. Not happening, and
> not likely too.

My impression is that things have been getting better in the past six
months.  There is more open discussion, and more voting, meaning one
group isn't making all the decisions.

I have worked to limit the sway of any "new gatekeepers".  People are
encouraged to vote, and we normally accept that outcome.  I think
gatekeepers should sway only in the force of their arguments.  Do you
feel this was not followed on the PGXLOG case, or is the concept in
error?

I certainly have been frustrated when my features were not accepted, but
I have to accept the vote of the group.

--  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,
Pennsylvania19073
 


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Greg Copeland
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Memory Errors...
Next
From: "Nigel J. Andrews"
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Memory Errors...