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

From Jan Wieck
Subject Re: [HACKERS] PGXLOG variable worthwhile?
Date
Msg-id 3D88045B.FD6E337@Yahoo.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] PGXLOG variable worthwhile?  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
List pgsql-general
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.

'yes' - make it one more GUC and done


Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Thomas O'Dowd
Date:
Subject: Re: Help!
Next
From: Jan Wieck
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PGXLOG variable worthwhile?