Re: AW: Proposed WAL changes

Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
>> But what possible reason is there for keeping it in pg_control?
>> AFAICS that would just mean that we'd need special code for setting it,
>> instead of making use of all of Peter's hard work on GUC.

> I don't think it's appropriate to edit archdir by hand.

Why not?  How is this a critical parameter (more critical than, say,
fsync enable)?  I see no reason to forbid the administrator from
changing it ... indeed, I think an admin who found out he couldn't
change it on-the-fly would be justifiably unhappy.  ("What do you
MEAN I can't change archdir?  I'm about to run out of space in
/usr/logs/foobar!!!")

I agree that we don't want random users changing the value via SET and
then issuing a CHECKPOINT (which would use whatever they'd SET :-().
But that's easily managed by setting an appropriate protection level
on the GUC variable.  Looks like SIGHUP level would be appropriate.
        regards, tom lane