Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDFED1337B58 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 15:20:27 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 05688-05 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 19:20:21 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-vw0-f46.google.com (mail-vw0-f46.google.com [209.85.212.46]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8364C1337B4A for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 15:20:20 -0400 (AST) Received: by vws13 with SMTP id 13so3648266vws.19 for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 11:20:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.223.87.2 with SMTP id u2mr125670fal.106.1290453619185; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 11:20:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from Craig-Jamess-MacBook-Pro.local (wsip-70-167-124-126.sd.sd.cox.net [70.167.124.126]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e6sm1484957fav.8.2010.11.22.11.20.17 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 22 Nov 2010 11:20:18 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4CEAC270.6040608@emolecules.com> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 11:20:16 -0800 From: Craig James User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Subject: Re: binary logs: a location other than pg_xlog?? References: <1557390103.902044.1290397034758.JavaMail.root@sz0093a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net> <4788.1290402707@sss.pgh.pa.us> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201011/194 X-Sequence-Number: 36160 On 11/22/10 10:42 AM, James Cloos wrote: >>>>>> "TL" == Tom Lane writes: > > TL> It *is* configurable: make pg_xlog a symlink. > > I notice that everyone suggests using a symlink, but I never see anyone > suggest just mounting a filesystem there. > > Is there a (technical) reason for that? Or is a symlink just though to > be easier to explain? I think it's a case of, "If you know how do do this, you don't have to ask." Craig