On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:46 PM, Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 29 April 2016 at 10:12, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.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.
Yeah. If we do this, it's is going to affect quite a few bits and pieces that know about pg_xlog, not to mention (I think) lots of third-party tools. So any patch doing this needs to be very carefully reviewed before it goes into core, and on a timeline that gives outside-of-core stuff a chance to react to it. > I just helped another person yesterday who deleted their pg_xlog. The biggest reason I've seen pg_xlog get deleted is not because it's called pg_xlog, but because it's located someplace other than under the data directory and referenced via a symlink. Renaming it might still make it less likely for people to get trigger happy, though. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers