On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> Any particular reason? It goes pretty tightly together with
> pg_receivexlog, which is why I'd prefer putting it alongside that one.
> But if you have a good argument against it, I can change my mind :)

Mostly that it seems like a hack, and I suspect we may come up with a
better way to do this in the future.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

• Re: pg_retainxlog for inclusion in 9.3? at 2013-01-03 16:32:19 from Magnus Hagander

Responses

• Re: pg_retainxlog for inclusion in 9.3? at 2013-01-04 18:13:59 from Peter Eisentraut
• Re: pg_retainxlog for inclusion in 9.3? at 2013-01-04 21:55:34 from Dimitri Fontaine

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Heikki Linnakangas	Date: 2013-01-03 17:47:40
	Subject: Re: PATCH: Split stats file per database WAS: autovacuum stress-testing our system
Previous:	From: Charles Gomes	Date: 2013-01-03 17:28:53
	Subject: Re: Writing Trigger Functions in C