Re: [GENERAL] PGXLOG variable worthwhile?
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [GENERAL] PGXLOG variable worthwhile? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200209190450.g8J4osE14706@candle.pha.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [GENERAL] PGXLOG variable worthwhile? ("Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: [GENERAL] PGXLOG variable worthwhile?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Yea, but you aren't going to be needing to know the xlog directory that > > way, will you? > > Why not? Who are you to tell me how my scripts work, or how they get > their information? I have a script that runs to tell me how much disk > space each instance is using up, that parses the ps output for the -D > argument ... having -X there would allow me to parse for that as well and, > if it was in the ps output, add that appropriately into the calculations > ... > > My point is, the functionality is there, and should be documented properly > ... encourage ppl to use the GUC setting in postmaster.conf, but just > because you can't grasp that some of us *like* to use command line args, > don't remove such functionality ... You ask for a vote and see if you can get votes to add -X. We had that vote once already. We do make decisions on what people should use. If not, we would be as hard to manage as Oracle. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania19073
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: