Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: pg_config, pg_service.conf, postgresql.conf ....

From: Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>
To: Mark Woodward <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, kleptog(at)svana(dot)org,tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_config, pg_service.conf, postgresql.conf ....
Date: 2006-02-21 16:48:25
Message-ID: 20060221083403.I11558@megazone.bigpanda.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, Mark Woodward wrote:

> > Mark Woodward wrote:
> >> The pg_config program needs to display more information, specifically
> >> where the location of pg_service.conf would reside.
> >
> > pg_config --sysconfdir
>
> Hmm, that doesn't show up with pg_config --help.
>
> markw(at)outland:~$  pg_config --sysconfdir
> pg_config: invalid argument: --sysconfdir
>
> Try "pg_config --help" for more information
>
> >
> >> Also, I know I've been harping on this for years (literally), but
> >> since the PosgteSQL programs already have the notion that there is
> >> some static directory for which to locate files (pg_service.conf),
> >> couldn't we also use this directory to include pg_hba.conf,
> >> pg_ident.conf, and perhaps even postgresql.conf?
> >
> > Considering that pg_service.conf is a client configuration file and the
> > others are server configuration files, I don't think there is a causal
> > relationship between putting them one place or another, independent of
> > the individual merit of placing them in particular spot.  I'm not sure
> > that sentence makes sense.
>
> Well, here's the thinking involved:
>
> pg_service.conf may currently be considered a "client side" utility, but
> it need not only be considered that.

I think it should.  The meaning of what a client side configuration needs
and what a server side configuration needs are different, and intermixing
them only either leaks information (server side information visible on
clients) or involves working around that with multiple configuration
files, which pretty much defeats the purpose of sharing the configuration.

In addition, the "service" on the client side is not the same as a cluster
on the server side AFAIK (and if I'm right, that's pretty necessary), so
trying to equate them seems like a bad idea for things like pg_ctl.  I
think you'd need a different concept.

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2006-02-21 17:31:51
Subject: Re: windows / initdb oddness
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-02-21 16:16:05
Subject: Re: pg_config, pg_service.conf, postgresql.conf ....

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group