Re: PGDATA confusion

On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 12:32:13PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Thom Brown wrote:
> > > So if one set PGDATA to somewhere which had no database files at all,
> > > but just postgresql.conf, it could still work (assuming it, in turn,
> > > set data_directory correctly), but not vice versa. ?It would make more
> > > sense to call it PGCONFIG, although I'm not proposing that, especially
> > > since PGDATA makes sense when it comes to initdb.
> > >
> > > There are probably plenty of other places in the docs which also don't
> > > adequately describe PGDATA or -D.
> > >
> > > Any disagreements? ?If not, should I write a patch (since someone will
> > > probably accuse me of volunteering anyway) or would someone like to
> > > commit some adjustments?
> >
> > No opinions on this?
>
> Yes. I had kept it to deal with later. Please work on a doc patch to
> try to clean this up. pg_upgrade just went through this confusion and I
> also was unhappy at how vague things are in this area.
>
> Things got very confusing with pg_upgrade when PGDATA pointed to the
> configuration directory and the data_directory GUC pointed to the data
> directory.

I have applied the attached doc patch for PG 9.3 to clarify PGDATA.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +