Re: PGXLOG variable worthwhile?
От | Curt Sampson |
---|---|
Тема | Re: PGXLOG variable worthwhile? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.NEB.4.44.0209232112530.6769-100000@angelic.cynic.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: PGXLOG variable worthwhile? ("Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 22 Sep 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > Thomas implemented an option that he felt was useful, and that doesn't > break anything inside of the code ... he provided 2 methods of being able > to move the xlog's to another location (through command line and > environment variable, both of which are standard methods for doing such in > server software) ... but, because a small number of ppl "voted" that it > should go away, it went away ... The option as he implemented it did make the system more fragile. You can't back up an environment variable, it's separated from other configuration information, and it's more easily changed without realizing it. We should be building systems that are as resilient to human failure as possible, not opening up more possibilities of failure. We already have a place for configuration information: the configuration file. If I created a patch to move a variable out of the configuration file and make it an environment variable instead, everybody would (rightly) think I was nuts, and the patch certainly would not be accepted. So why should the situation be different for new configuration information? cjs -- Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.netbsd.org Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're alllight. --XTC
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: