Re: AW: Proposed WAL changes

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

Regards,
Hiroshi Inoue