Re: PGXLOG variable worthwhile?

On Fri, 20 Sep 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote:

> Well, what I was hoping for, but no longer expect, is that features
> (store xlog in another area) can be implemented and applied without
> rejection by the new gatekeepers.

It can be, and very simply. So long as you do it in the way which
is not error-prone, rather than the way which is.

> I have no fundamental objection to extending and replacing
> implementation features as positive contributions to development. I do
> have trouble with folks rejecting features without understanding the
> issues, and sorry, there was a strong thread of "why would anyone want
> to put storage on another device" to the discussion.

I doubt it. There was perhaps a strong thread of "windows users
are loosers," but certainly Unix folks put storage on another device
all the time, using symlinks. This was mentioned many, many times.

> There has been a fundamental shift in the quality and civility of
> discussions over issues over the last couple of years, and I was naively
> hoping that we could work through that on this topic. Not happening, and
> not likely too.

Well, when you're going to bring in Windows in a pretty heavily
open-source-oriented group, no, it's not likely you're going to bring
everyone together. (This is not a value judgement, it's just a, "Hello,
this is the usenet (or something similar)," observation.

That said, again, I don't think anybody was objecting to what you
wanted to do. It was simply a bad implementation that I, and probably
all the others, were objecting to. So please don't go on like we didn't
like the concept.

cjs
--
Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.netbsd.org
Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light. --XTC