Re: location of the configuration files

Tom Lane wrote:

>mlw <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> writes:
>
>
>>The idea of using a "directory" puts us back to using symlinks to share
>>files.
>>
>>
>
>So? If you want to share files, you're probably sharing all three
>config files and don't need a separate directory at all. This is
>not a sufficient argument to make me buy into the mess of letting
>people choose nonstandard configuration file names --- especially
>when most of the opposite camp seems to be more interested in choosing
>*standard* names for things. Why does that policy stop short at the
>directory name?
>
>
symlinks suck. Sorry Tom, but they are *BAD* in a production server. You
can not add comments to symlinks. Most of the admins I know, myself
included, HATE symlinks and use them as a last resort. Requiring
symlinks is just pointless, we are talking about a few lines of code hat
has nothing to do with performance.

The patch that I submitted allows PostgreSQL to work as it always has,
but adds the ability for a configuration file to do what is normally
done with fixed names in $PGDATA.

I have said before, I do not like policy, I like flexibility, forcing a
directory is similarly restricting as requiring the files in $PGDATA.

Why is this such a problem? MANY people want to configure PostgreSQL
this way, but the patch I submitted allows it, but does not force
anything. Any configuration solution that requires symlinks is flawed.

>
>