Re: Renaming of pg_xlog and pg_clog - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Daniel Verite
Subject Re: Renaming of pg_xlog and pg_clog
Date
Msg-id 3e54ee0f-2ab1-41db-a991-76571c531fdc@mm
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Renaming of pg_xlog and pg_clog  ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>)
Responses Re: Renaming of pg_xlog and pg_clog
List pgsql-hackers
    Joshua D. Drake wrote:

> You log in, see that all the space and you find that you are using a
> ton of disk space. You look around for anything you can delete. You
> find a directory called pg_xlog, it says log, junior ignorant, don't
> want to be a sysadmin 101 says, "delete logs".

Yes, it happens. I don't deny the problem, but I'm wondering
about the wishful thinking we're possibly falling into here
concerning the solution.

Let's imagine that pg_xlog is named wal instead.
How does that help our user with the disk space problem?
Does that point to a path of resolution? I don't see it.
What do we think that user's next move will be?
After all, WAL means Write Ahead *Log*.

On the other hand, by decommissioning pg_xlog as a name,
that makes it obsolete in all presentations, tutorials, docs
that refer to that directory, and there are many of them.
There are years of confusion ahead with questions like
"where is that pg_xlog directory that I'm supposed to
monitor, or move into a different partition, etc...",
for a benefit that remains to be seen.

Best regards,
--
Daniel Vérité
PostgreSQL-powered mailer: http://www.manitou-mail.org
Twitter: @DanielVerite



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Renaming of pg_xlog and pg_clog
Next
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Re: Renaming of pg_xlog and pg_clog