Re: PostgreSQL configuration

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com, rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL configuration
Date: 2004-04-12 15:33:03
Message-ID: 10529.1081783983@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> My personal opinion is that we should move the config files from
> pgsql/data to pgsql/data/etc. Unix config files aren't put in /, they
> are in /etc, so this seems logical. I was never comfortable with having
> editable files right next to files that shouldn't be touched.

Perhaps we are arguing at cross-purposes. Are you saying that the
postmaster should seek config files as, eg, $PGDATA/etc/postgresql.conf
instead of $PGDATA/postgresql.conf? That would be all right with me.
I thought you were proposing to move them to /etc (absolute path),
which isn't all right ...

> Secondly, everyone seems to like the 'include' idea, and it gives
> per-line control over file sharing.

Yeah, I think include is non-controversial, the argument is about what
else (if anything) to change.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message pgsql 2004-04-12 15:41:39 Re: PostgreSQL configuration
Previous Message pgsql 2004-04-12 15:19:46 Re: PostgreSQL configuration