| From: | mlw <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Kevin Brown <kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com>, Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net>, Rod Taylor <rbt(at)rbt(dot)ca>, Oliver Elphick <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk> |
| Subject: | Re: location of the configuration files |
| Date: | 2003-02-15 14:48:57 |
| Message-ID: | 3E4E5359.1070301@mohawksoft.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Treat wrote:
>Seems like some are saying one of the problems with the current system
>is it doesn't follow FHS or LSB. If those are valid reasons to change
>the system, it seems like a change which doesn't actually address those
>concerns would not be acceptable. (Unless those really aren't valid
>concerns...)
>
>
>
I did not start this thread to make PostgreSQL FHS compatible, someone
else brought that up.
As I said somewhere else, I'm an old fashioned UNIX guy, capability
without policy. The patch that I submitted for 7.3.2 will allow the user
to configure PostgreSQL with a configuration file outside the $PGDATA
directory. That's all I care about. If someone wants to get on the FHS
bandwagon, that's fine. PostgreSQL should allow that ability but should
not require it.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | mlw | 2003-02-15 14:53:23 | Re: location of the configuration files |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-02-15 14:27:11 | Re: [HACKERS] Linux.conf.au 2003 Report |