Re: AW: Proposed WAL changes

Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
>> But what possible reason is there for keeping it in pg_control?
>> AFAICS that would just mean that we'd need special code for setting it,
>> instead of making use of all of Peter's hard work on GUC.

> I don't think it's appropriate to edit archdir by hand.

Why not? How is this a critical parameter (more critical than, say,
fsync enable)? I see no reason to forbid the administrator from
changing it ... indeed, I think an admin who found out he couldn't
change it on-the-fly would be justifiably unhappy. ("What do you
MEAN I can't change archdir? I'm about to run out of space in
/usr/logs/foobar!!!")

I agree that we don't want random users changing the value via SET and
then issuing a CHECKPOINT (which would use whatever they'd SET :-().
But that's easily managed by setting an appropriate protection level
on the GUC variable. Looks like SIGHUP level would be appropriate.

regards, tom lane