On Tue, 17 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Dave Page wrote: > > Which in this case is what puzzles me. We are only talking about a > > simple GUC variable after all - I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing > > it's not a huge effort to add one? > > Can we get agreement on that? A GUC for pg_xlog location? Much cleaner > than -X, doesn't have the problems of possible accidental use, and does > allow pg_xlog moving without symlinks, which some people don't like? > > If I can get a few 'yes' votes I will add it to TODO and do it for 7.4.
Personally, I like the ability to define such at a command line level ... *especially* as it pertains to pointing to various directories ... I am against pulling the -X functionality out ... if you don't like it, don't use it ... add the GUC variable option to the mix, but don't take away functionality ... Hell, take a look at what you are saying above: because someone might forget to set -X, let's get rid of it in favor of a setting in a file that someone might forget to edit? Either format has the possibility of an error ... if you are so incompetent as to make that sort of mistake on a production server, it won't matter if its a GUC variable, environment variable or commnd line argument, you will still make that mistake ... ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
