Re: [GENERAL] PGXLOG variable worthwhile?

From: Greg Copeland <greg(at)CopelandConsulting(dot)Net>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] PGXLOG variable worthwhile?
Date: 2002-09-19 13:47:14
Message-ID: 1032443235.3268.343.camel@mouse.copelandconsulting.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

I think Marc made a pretty good case about the use of command line
arguments but I think I have to vote with Tom. Many of the command line
arguments you seem to be using do sorta make sense to have for easy
reference or to help validate your runtime environment for each
instance. The other side of that is, I completely agree with Tom in the
it's a very dangerous option. It would be begging for people to shoot
themselves with it. Besides, just as you can easily parse the command
line, you can also parse the config file to out that information. Plus,
it really should be a very seldom used option. When it is used, it's
doubtful that you'll need the same level of dynamic control that you get
by using command line options.

As a rule of thumb, if an option is rarely used or is very dangerous if
improperly used, I do think it should be in a configuration file to
discourage adhoc use.

Let's face it, specify XLOG location is hardly something people need to
be doing on the fly.

My vote is config file it and no command line option!

Greg

On Wed, 2002-09-18 at 23:50, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > > Yea, but you aren't going to be needing to know the xlog directory that
> > > way, will you?
> >
> > Why not? Who are you to tell me how my scripts work, or how they get
> > their information? I have a script that runs to tell me how much disk
> > space each instance is using up, that parses the ps output for the -D
> > argument ... having -X there would allow me to parse for that as well and,
> > if it was in the ps output, add that appropriately into the calculations
> > ...
> >
> > My point is, the functionality is there, and should be documented properly
> > ... encourage ppl to use the GUC setting in postmaster.conf, but just
> > because you can't grasp that some of us *like* to use command line args,
> > don't remove such functionality ...
>
> You ask for a vote and see if you can get votes to add -X. We had that
> vote once already. We do make decisions on what people should use. If
> not, we would be as hard to manage as Oracle.
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
> pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
> + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
> + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Johnson, Shaunn 2002-09-19 14:09:09 killing process question
Previous Message Jean-Christian Imbeault 2002-09-19 13:46:27 Re: IN vs EXIIST

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-09-19 13:53:58 Re: Proposal for resolving casting issues
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-09-19 13:31:14 Re: The TODO List (Was: Re: Open 7.3 items)