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
