Re: config files in /data

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: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: config files in /data
Date: 2000-05-31 23:15:33
Message-ID: 12031.959814933@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:
>> Right. How about `$PGDATA/internal'? Can't be more obvious. Perhaps with
>> that we could also have initdb clean up a little more respectfully.

> Are we talking about moveing pg_log and pg_shadow? Maybe call it
> /global because the tables are global to all databases.

We weren't, but it seems like a good idea now that you mention it.
So it sounds like we are converging on:

$PGDATA itself contains only directly-editable config files

$PGDATA/base/ contains database subdirectories (same as now)

$PGDATA/global/ contains installation-wide tables (pg_database,
pg_shadow, their indices, etc)

$PGDATA/internal/ contains anything else that is installation-wide
but is not a table.

The distinction between /global and /internal is a little bit artificial
(which one does pg_log belong in? It's only sort of a table...), so
maybe we'd be better off just putting those two together. Don't have
a strong opinion either way.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2000-05-31 23:21:00 Re: config files in /data
Previous Message Tom Lane 2000-05-31 23:08:57 Re: Database names with spaces