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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
31 matches
Mail list logo