From: | Kevin Brown <kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: location of the configuration files |
Date: | 2003-02-14 18:09:37 |
Message-ID: | 20030214180937.GC1833@filer |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> The big question is whether PGDATA is still our driving config variable,
> and PGCONFIG/-C is just an additional option, or whether we are moving
> in a direction where PGCONFIG/-C is going to be the driving value, and
> data_dir is going to be read as part of that.
I'm actually leaning towards PGCONFIG + PGDATA.
Yeah, it may be a surprise given my previous arguments, but I can't
help but think that the advantages you get with PGDATA will also exist
for PGCONFIG.
My previous arguments for removing PGDATA from postmaster can be dealt
with by fixing pg_ctl to use explicit command line directives when
invoking postmaster -- no changes to postmaster needed. PGCONFIG
would be no different in that regard.
Sorry if I seem a big gung-ho on the administrator point of view, but
as a system administrator myself I understand and feel their pain.
:-)
--
Kevin Brown kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2003-02-14 18:10:00 | Re: Tuning scenarios (was Changing the default configuration) |
Previous Message | Curtis Faith | 2003-02-14 18:00:39 | Re: Brain dump: btree collapsing |