Re: pg_xlog -> pg_xjournal?

From: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_xlog -> pg_xjournal?
Date: 2016-04-29 03:46:50
Message-ID: CAMsr+YFnDYxM1vwVBEonZYt+N3pf_g4s2Q3OQ7PGcmPO5amWOg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 29 April 2016 at 10:12, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:

>
> My larger question was, was 9.6 an ideal time to do this, and if so, why
> did this issue not get done. If 9.6 wasn't in some way ideal, we can do
> it in 9.7.
>
>
Doing it at the very beginning of the release cycle seems like a good idea.

I just helped another person yesterday who deleted their pg_xlog.

--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message sri harsha 2016-04-29 03:55:41 UNION ALL - Var attno
Previous Message Robert Haas 2016-04-29 02:37:20 Re: [sqlsmith] Crash in apply_projection_to_path