On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 5:33 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 6:34 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: >> On 2016-08-26 17:31:14 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>> I agree with all that. But the subject line is specifically about >>> moving pg_xlog. So if your opinion is that we shouldn't move pg_xlog, >>> then that is noted. But if we were to move it, we can think about a >>> good place to move it to. >> >> I think it's probably worth moving pg_xlog, because the benefit also >> includes preventing a few users from shooting themselves somewhere >> vital. That's imo much less the case for some of the other moves. But I >> still don't think think a largescale reorganization is a good idea, >> it'll just stall and nothing will happen. > > OK, so let's focus only on the renaming mentioned in $subject. So far > as I can see on this thread, here are the opinions of people who > clearly gave one: > - Rename them, hard break is OK: Michael P, Bruce, Stephen (depends on > David's input), Magnus > - Rename them, hard break not OK: Fujii-san (perhaps do nothing?) > - Do nothing: Simon (add a README), Tom, Peter E
I vote for "do nothing". First of all, I can't have much hope for that renaming the directories really prevents "careless" users from wrongly deleting the important files. Regards, -- Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
