On 08/29/2016 12:04 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 2:45 AM, Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com
<mailto:jim.na...@bluetreble.com>> wrote:

    On 8/26/16 4:08 PM, Andres Freund wrote:

        Splitting of ephemeral data seems to have a benefit, the rest
        seems more
        like rather noisy busywork to me.


    People accidentally blowing away pg_clog or pg_xlog is a pretty
    common occurrence, and I don't think there's all that many tools
    that reference them. I think it's well worth renaming them.


Pretty sure every single backup tool or script out there is referencing
pg_xlog. If it's not, then it's broken...

No, not really. Consider a filesytem backup using archiving and base backups. It doesn't care one lick about pg_xlog. And I guarantee you that there are tons of people running a backup like that considering the same script would work all the way back to 8.2 (.1?).

Sincerely,

JD

--
Command Prompt, Inc.                  http://the.postgres.company/
                        +1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.


--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to