On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 5:21 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > Daniel, > > * Daniel Verite (dan...@manitou-mail.org) wrote: >> What if we look at the change from the pessimistic angle? >> An example of confusion that the change would create: >> a lot of users currently choose pg_wal for the destination >> directory of their archive command. Less-informed users >> that set up archiving and/or log shipping in PG10 based on >> advice online from previous versions will be fairly >> confused about the missing pg_xlog, and the fact that the >> pg_wal directory they're supposed to create already exists. > > One would hope that they would realize that's not going to work > when they set up PG10. If they aren't paying attention sufficient > to realize that then it seems entirely likely that they would feel > equally safe removing the contents of a directory named 'pg_xlog'.
So... somebody want to tally up the votes here? And... was this discussed at the FOSDEM developer meeting? (Please say yes.) -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers