| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Vadim Mikheev" <vmikheev(at)sectorbase(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, "Zeugswetter Andreas SB" <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: AW: Proposed WAL changes |
| Date: | 2001-03-07 15:47:11 |
| Message-ID: | 9503.983980031@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Vadim Mikheev" <vmikheev(at)sectorbase(dot)com> writes:
> So, I don't see why to remove archdir from pg_control now.
I didn't like the space consumption. I think it's important that the
pg_control data fit in less than 512 bytes so that it doesn't cross
physical sectors on the disk. This reduces the odds of being left
with a corrupted pg_control due to partial write during power loss.
That's a second-order consideration, possibly, but I can see no
redeeming social advantage whatever to having archdir in pg_control
rather than in postgresql.conf where all the other system parameters
live. Unless you've got one, it's coming out...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-03-07 15:56:33 | Performance monitor |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-03-07 15:41:45 | Re: psql missing feature |