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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to