Justin Clift wrote:
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> <snip>
> > Oh, that is bad news. Well, can we accept they will not be moving XLOG
> > around?
> >
> > The problem with the non-symlink solution is that it is error-prone/ugly
> > on all the platforms, not just NT4.X.
>
> What you guys are saying isn't necessarily wrong, in that it may not
> definitely be very pretty.
>
> However, moving the WAL files to another disk has a significant
> performance gain attached to it for loaded servers, so we how about we
> take the viewpoint that if WinNT/2k/XP are to be supported then we might
> as well let it do things properly instead of handicapping it?
I just don't see why that all could become an issue. Someone
running big stuff on NT4 today is not running a native PostgreSQL
port on it. Why would someone want to do a new, big, PG
installation on an old, unsupported NT4 server today?
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being
right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive
me. #
#==================================================
JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
