Re: AW: Proposed WAL changes

Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Why not?  How is this a critical parameter (more critical than, say,
>> fsync enable)? 

> I don't think 'fsync enable' is a critical parameter.
> It's a dangerous parameter and it's not appropriate
> as a GUC paramter either.

That's also PGC_SIGHUP (recently fixed by me, it was set at a lower level
before).

> Does it have any meaning other than testing ? IMHO recovery system
> doesn't allow any optimism and archdir is also a part of recovery
> system though I'm not sure how critical the parameter would be.

I still don't see your point.  The admin *can* change these parameters
if he wishes.  Why should we make it more difficult to do so than is
reasonably necessary?  There is certainly no technical reason why we
should (say) force an initdb to change archdir.
        regards, tom lane