Re: [HACKERS] pg_xlog -> pg_xjournal?

2016-05-03 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On 05/03/2016 06:38 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:29 PM, Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:46 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: I just helped another person yesterday who deleted their pg_xlog. The biggest reason I've

Re: [HACKERS] pg_xlog -> pg_xjournal?

2016-05-03 Thread Michael Paquier
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:29 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:46 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: >> I just helped another person yesterday who deleted their pg_xlog. > > The biggest reason I've seen pg_xlog get deleted is not because it's

Re: [HACKERS] pg_xlog -> pg_xjournal?

2016-05-02 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:46 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: > On 29 April 2016 at 10:12, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> My larger question was, was 9.6 an ideal time to do this, and if so, why >> did this issue not get done. If 9.6 wasn't in some way ideal, we can do

Re: [HACKERS] pg_xlog -> pg_xjournal?

2016-04-28 Thread Craig Ringer
On 29 April 2016 at 10:12, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > My larger question was, was 9.6 an ideal time to do this, and if so, why > did this issue not get done. If 9.6 wasn't in some way ideal, we can do > it in 9.7. > > Doing it at the very beginning of the release cycle seems

Re: [HACKERS] pg_xlog -> pg_xjournal?

2016-04-28 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 10:07:40PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian writes: > > Are we going to rename pg_xlog or pg_clog for 9.6? > > NO. We don't even have a patch for this, much less one that's been > through any review. This suggestion is at least two months too

Re: [HACKERS] pg_xlog -> pg_xjournal?

2016-04-28 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian writes: > Are we going to rename pg_xlog or pg_clog for 9.6? NO. We don't even have a patch for this, much less one that's been through any review. This suggestion is at least two months too late. regards, tom lane -- Sent via

Re: [HACKERS] pg_xlog -> pg_xjournal?

2016-04-28 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 04:30:39PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2016-04-28 19:23:26 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > Are we going to rename pg_xlog or pg_clog for 9.6? > > If we do so, we should do it at a good bit earlier in the cycle imo. Well, we talked about it in May of 2015, but

Re: [HACKERS] pg_xlog -> pg_xjournal?

2016-04-28 Thread Andres Freund
On 2016-04-28 19:23:26 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Are we going to rename pg_xlog or pg_clog for 9.6? If we do so, we should do it at a good bit earlier in the cycle imo. Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription:

Re: [HACKERS] pg_xlog -> pg_xjournal?

2016-04-28 Thread Bruce Momjian
Are we going to rename pg_xlog or pg_clog for 9.6? --- On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 10:44:54PM +0200, Joel Jacobson wrote: > On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 7:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Hm. I think the impact on

Re: [HACKERS] pg_xlog - pg_xjournal?

2015-06-03 Thread Jim Nasby
On 6/2/15 4:58 PM, David Steele wrote: On 5/31/15 1:46 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Hm. I think the impact on third-party backup tools would be rather bad, but there's a simple modification of the idea that might fix that: just always create pg_xlog as a symlink to pg_xjournal during initdb. Anybody

Re: [HACKERS] pg_xlog - pg_xjournal?

2015-06-02 Thread Joel Jacobson
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 6:35 AM, Michael Nolan htf...@gmail.com wrote: Why not take a simpler approach and create a zero length file in directories that should not be fiddled with by non-experts using a file name something like DO.NOT.DELETE.THESE.FILES? Then the smart sysadmin will say but I

Re: [HACKERS] pg_xlog - pg_xjournal?

2015-06-02 Thread Guillaume Lelarge
Le 2 juin 2015 6:37 AM, Michael Nolan htf...@gmail.com a écrit : Why not take a simpler approach and create a zero length file in directories that should not be fiddled with by non-experts using a file name something like DO.NOT.DELETE.THESE.FILES? No, it won't prevent the incredibly stupid

Re: [HACKERS] pg_xlog - pg_xjournal?

2015-06-02 Thread Mark Kirkwood
On 01/06/15 05:29, Joel Jacobson wrote: While anyone who is familiar with postgres would never do something as stupid as to delete pg_xlog, according to Google, there appears to be a fair amount of end-users out there having made the irrevocable mistake of deleting the precious directory, a

Re: [HACKERS] pg_xlog - pg_xjournal?

2015-06-02 Thread Abhijit Menon-Sen
At 2015-06-01 23:35:23 -0500, htf...@gmail.com wrote: No, it won't prevent the incredibly stupid from doing incredibly stupid things, nothing will. I hate to speechify, but I think we should try hard to avoid framing such questions in terms of incredibly stupid people and the things they might

Re: [HACKERS] pg_xlog - pg_xjournal?

2015-06-02 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On 06/01/2015 09:35 PM, Michael Nolan wrote: Why not take a simpler approach and create a zero length file in directories that should not be fiddled with by non-experts using a file name something like DO.NOT.DELETE.THESE.FILES? +1 No, it won't prevent the incredibly stupid from doing

Re: [HACKERS] pg_xlog - pg_xjournal?

2015-06-02 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 07:33:19PM +0530, Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote: At 2015-06-01 23:35:23 -0500, htf...@gmail.com wrote: No, it won't prevent the incredibly stupid from doing incredibly stupid things, nothing will. I hate to speechify, but I think we should try hard to avoid framing

Re: [HACKERS] pg_xlog - pg_xjournal?

2015-06-02 Thread Amit Langote
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 11:03 PM, Abhijit Menon-Sen a...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: At 2015-06-01 23:35:23 -0500, htf...@gmail.com wrote: No, it won't prevent the incredibly stupid from doing incredibly stupid things, nothing will. I hate to speechify, but I think we should try hard to avoid

Re: [HACKERS] pg_xlog - pg_xjournal?

2015-06-02 Thread Andrew Dunstan
On 06/02/2015 03:06 AM, Joel Jacobson wrote: On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 6:35 AM, Michael Nolan htf...@gmail.com wrote: Why not take a simpler approach and create a zero length file in directories that should not be fiddled with by non-experts using a file name something like

Re: [HACKERS] pg_xlog - pg_xjournal?

2015-06-01 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 5/31/15 1:29 PM, Joel Jacobson wrote: My suggestion is to use pg_xjournal instead of pg_xlog If we're going to make any changes in this area, I would like to see a more comprehensive solution for separating user-editable files from internal files. (E.g., make subdirectories etc and var; just

Re: [HACKERS] pg_xlog - pg_xjournal?

2015-06-01 Thread Josh Berkus
On 05/31/2015 10:46 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Joel Jacobson j...@trustly.com writes: If we could turn back time, would we have picked pg_xlog as the most optimal name for this important directory, or would we have come up with a more user-friendly name? Yeah... My suggestion is to use

Re: [HACKERS] pg_xlog - pg_xjournal?

2015-06-01 Thread Joel Jacobson
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:17 PM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: If we symlink pg_xlog, then it will still trip up anyone who does rm -rf *log*/* or deletes files directly from inside the directory, both of which I've seen. Deleting the directory itself is comparatively rare in my

Re: [HACKERS] pg_xlog - pg_xjournal?

2015-06-01 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 05:57:27PM -0400, David Steele wrote: On 6/1/15 4:42 PM, Joel Jacobson wrote: Also ... if we were to rename it, it should be pg_wal or pg_xact. Please let's not add yet another term for the WAL. I like pg_wal. It's correct and suitably mysterious. +1 -- Bruce

Re: [HACKERS] pg_xlog - pg_xjournal?

2015-06-01 Thread David Steele
On 6/1/15 4:42 PM, Joel Jacobson wrote: Also ... if we were to rename it, it should be pg_wal or pg_xact. Please let's not add yet another term for the WAL. I like pg_wal. It's correct and suitably mysterious. -- - David Steele da...@pgmasters.net signature.asc Description: OpenPGP

Re: [HACKERS] pg_xlog - pg_xjournal?

2015-06-01 Thread Thomas Munro
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 8:17 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: Also ... if we were to rename it, it should be pg_wal or pg_xact. Please let's not add yet another term for the WAL. +1 for pg_wal if it has to be renamed. If pg_clog also has to be renamed, how about using your other

Re: [HACKERS] pg_xlog - pg_xjournal?

2015-06-01 Thread Josh Berkus
On 06/01/2015 04:22 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 8:17 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: Also ... if we were to rename it, it should be pg_wal or pg_xact. Please let's not add yet another term for the WAL. +1 for pg_wal if it has to be renamed. If pg_clog also has

Re: [HACKERS] pg_xlog - pg_xjournal?

2015-06-01 Thread Michael Nolan
Why not take a simpler approach and create a zero length file in directories that should not be fiddled with by non-experts using a file name something like DO.NOT.DELETE.THESE.FILES? No, it won't prevent the incredibly stupid from doing incredibly stupid things, nothing will. -- Mike Nolan

Re: [HACKERS] pg_xlog - pg_xjournal?

2015-06-01 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: On 06/01/2015 04:22 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 8:17 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote: Also ... if we were to rename it, it should be pg_wal or pg_xact. Please let's not add yet another term for the

Re: [HACKERS] pg_xlog - pg_xjournal?

2015-05-31 Thread Tom Lane
Joel Jacobson j...@trustly.com writes: If we could turn back time, would we have picked pg_xlog as the most optimal name for this important directory, or would we have come up with a more user-friendly name? Yeah... My suggestion is to use pg_xjournal instead of pg_xlog when new users

Re: [HACKERS] pg_xlog - pg_xjournal?

2015-05-31 Thread Joel Jacobson
On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 7:46 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: Hm. I think the impact on third-party backup tools would be rather bad, but there's a simple modification of the idea that might fix that: just always create pg_xlog as a symlink to pg_xjournal during initdb. Anybody who

Re: [HACKERS] pg_xlog - pg_xjournal?

2015-05-31 Thread Abhijit Menon-Sen
At 2015-05-31 13:46:33 -0400, t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: just always create pg_xlog as a symlink to pg_xjournal during initdb. At first glance, the Subject: of this thread made me think that *was* Joel's proposal. :-) But I think it's a great idea, and worth doing. I think pg_journal (no x) is

[HACKERS] pg_xlog - pg_xjournal?

2015-05-31 Thread Joel Jacobson
While anyone who is familiar with postgres would never do something as stupid as to delete pg_xlog, according to Google, there appears to be a fair amount of end-users out there having made the irrevocable mistake of deleting the precious directory, a decision made on the assumption that since it