Re: AW: [HACKERS] Proposed WAL changes

[Tom Lane]

"Vadim Mikheev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html