Re: PostgreSQL configuration

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Obviously, we need to do something. There are just too many people who
> > want improvement in this area. The question is what changes to make.
>
> As far as I've seen in this thread, there's only *one* person arguing
> for change, and even he isn't advocating changing the default behavior.
> So why are you of the opinion that we need to make radical changes in
> the default behavior? Which is what the proposals you've suggested are.
>
> I haven't seen anything that involves changing the default behavior that
> would not make it materially harder to run multiple copies of PG, and
> especially would make it materially harder to create a test installation
> without needing root privileges to do the install. Anything that pushes
> config files into fixed places means you need root.

I don't see any big reason to change our existing default, but we have
had a lot of requests/discussion on this in the past, so though there is
only one person proposing a patch now, we do have folks who want
improvement in this area.

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. This
makes backup of the config files easier, and allows for use of a symlink
for the directory for those who want them. I assume some will argue
that the change isn't worth it.

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

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073