Are we going to rename pg_xlog or pg_clog for 9.6?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 10:44:54PM +0200, Joel Jacobson wrote:
> On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 7:46 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > Hm. I think the impact on third-party backup tools would be rather bad,
> > but there's a simple modification of the idea that might fix that:
> > just always create pg_xlog as a symlink to pg_xjournal during initdb.
> > Anybody who blindly removes pg_xlog won't have done anything
> > irreversible. We could deprecate pg_xlog and stop creating the symlink
> > after a few releases, once third-party tools have had a reasonable
> > amount of time to adjust.
>
> I like the solution. Simple and effective.
> +1
>
> > In the end though, this is a lot of thrashing for a problem that
> > only comes up rarely ...
>
> It happens often enough for the problem to be the first mentioned
> use-case of pg_resetxlog at Stack Overflow:
>
> "pg_resetxlog is a tool of last resort for getting your database
> running again after:
> 1. You deleted files you shouldn't have from pg_xlog;"
>
> (http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12897429/what-does-pg-resetxlog-do-and-how-does-it-work)
>
> Preventing failure in the case of faults is of course one of the
> primary objectives of any database.
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
