Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: initdb change

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Joshua Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: initdb change
Date: 2008-08-25 17:56:16
Message-ID: 48B2F240.9030302@dunslane.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Joshua Drake wrote:
>>
>> Is there some reason why initdb shouldn't just Do The Right Thing™
>> when it finds an empty extant $PGDATA/pg_xlog directory that passes
>> the same tests an empty extant $PGDATA would?
>>     
>
> That is what I was suggesting.
>
>   
>   

Why should the xlog directory be treated specially? We don't do this for 
any other subdirectory of PGDATA. The extra logic would be a nuisance 
and for no great gain in functionality that I can see.

This whole discussion springs from a misconception apparently, so let's 
just move on.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Joshua DrakeDate: 2008-08-25 18:05:21
Subject: Re: initdb change
Previous:From: Jeff DavisDate: 2008-08-25 17:42:30
Subject: Re: WIP patch: reducing overhead for repeat de-TOASTing

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group