
> Could GUC parameters be changed permanently e.g. by SET command ?
> 
> For example,
> 1) start postmaster
> 2) set archdir to '....'
> 3) shutdown postmaster

I thought the intended way to change a GUC parameter permanently was to 
edit data/postgresql.conf . No ?

Andreas

Wed, 7 Mar 2001 08:56:58 +0100 
Zeugswetter Andreas SB  <ZeugswetterA@wien.spardat.at>
AW: Proposed WAL changes 
Zeugswetter Andreas SB wrote:
> 
> > Could GUC parameters be changed permanently e.g. by SET command ?
> >
> > For example,
> > 1) start postmaster
> > 2) set archdir to '....'
> > 3) shutdown postmaster
> 
> I thought the intended way to change a GUC parameter permanently was to
> edit data/postgresql.conf . No ?
> 

What I've thought is to implement a new command to
change archdir under WAL's control.
If it's different from Vadim's plan I don't object.

Regards,
Hiroshi Inoue

Wed, 07 Mar 2001 17:09:34 +0900
Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
Re: AW: Proposed WAL changes
> > I thought the intended way to change a GUC parameter permanently was to
> > edit data/postgresql.conf . No ?
> > 
> 
> What I've thought is to implement a new command to
> change archdir under WAL's control.
> If it's different from Vadim's plan I don't object.

Actually, I have no concrete plans for archdir yet - this
one is for WAL based BAR we should discuss in future.
So, I don't see why to remove archdir from pg_control now.

Vadim



Wed, 7 Mar 2001 00:28:34 -0800
"Vadim Mikheev" <vmikheev@sectorbase.com>
Re: AW: Proposed WAL changes
> > > I thought the intended way to change a GUC parameter permanently was to
> > > edit data/postgresql.conf . No ?
> > > 
> > 
> > What I've thought is to implement a new command to
> > change archdir under WAL's control.
> > If it's different from Vadim's plan I don't object.
> 
> Actually, I have no concrete plans for archdir yet - this
> one is for WAL based BAR we should discuss in future.
> So, I don't see why to remove archdir from pg_control now.

Maybe we can get BAR in 7.1.X so maybe we should have the option to add
it.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Wed, 7 Mar 2001 09:50:21 -0500 (EST)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: AW: Proposed WAL changes
"Vadim Mikheev" <vmikheev@sectorbase.com> writes:
> So, I don't see why to remove archdir from pg_control now.

I didn't like the space consumption.  I think it's important that the
pg_control data fit in less than 512 bytes so that it doesn't cross
physical sectors on the disk.  This reduces the odds of being left
with a corrupted pg_control due to partial write during power loss.

That's a second-order consideration, possibly, but I can see no
redeeming social advantage whatever to having archdir in pg_control
rather than in postgresql.conf where all the other system parameters
live.  Unless you've got one, it's coming out...

			regards, tom lane

Wed, 07 Mar 2001 10:47:11 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: AW: Proposed WAL changes 