| From: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM>, "'Bruce Momjian'" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: AW: Proposed WAL changes |
| Date: | 2001-03-08 00:46:39 |
| Message-ID: | 3AA6D66E.5B451B46@tpf.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> 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 don't think 'fsync enable' is a critical parameter.
It's a dangerous parameter and it's not appropriate
as a GUC paramter either. Does it have any meaning
other than testing ? IMHO recovery system doesn't
allow any optimism and archdir is also a part of
recovery system though I'm not sure how critical
the parameter would be.
Regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Luis Magaa | 2001-03-08 00:55:43 | pg_dump error |
| Previous Message | Philip Warner | 2001-03-08 00:42:28 | Re: Performance monitor |