| From: | Greg Copeland <greg(at)CopelandConsulting(dot)Net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net>, Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info>, PostgreSQL Hackers List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: WAL file location |
| Date: | 2002-08-02 20:07:04 |
| Message-ID: | 1028318825.3278.7.camel@mouse.copelandconsulting.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2002-08-02 at 13:46, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> > > I am wondering why we even want to specify the WAL location anywhere
> > > except as a flag to initdb. If you specify a location at initdb time,
> > > it creates the /xlog directory, then symlinks it into /data.
> > Does this have any negative implications for Win32 ports?
>
> Sure. the symlinks thing was just a suggestion. Everything else is
> portable for sure... Or is there some other area you are concerned
> about?
Well, as another poster pointed out, Cygwin does support soft links but
I was also under the impression that lots of Win32 related development
was underway. I wasn't sure if those plans called for the use of Cygwin
or not.
I was just trying to highlight a possible cause for concern...as I
honestly don't know how it relates to the current Win32 efforts.
Greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-08-02 20:09:55 | Re: getpid() function |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-02 20:01:40 | Re: PITR, checkpoint, and local relations |