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

Reply via email to