From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Takayuki Tsunakawa <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: What is the motivation of include directive and |
Date: | 2007-01-17 14:15:08 |
Message-ID: | 45AE2F6C.9040004@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Takayuki Tsunakawa" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> writes:
>
>> Still, I don't understand well why config files need to be placed
>> outside the data directory, except for daring conform to FHS.
>>
>
> The killer argument for it is that most of what is in $PGDATA should be
> excluded from your normal filesystem backup method, because you need to
> be using some database-aware mechanism for backing up the database. But
> the config files are perfectly suited for standard filesystem backup,
> and indeed will *not* be covered by, say, pg_dumpall. So putting them
> somewhere else helps in creating a coherent backup strategy.
>
>
My backup setup excludes subdirectories of the data dir, rather than the
data dir itself.
Meeting FHS requirements is no bad thing, though. And the ability to
include a common configuration set in multiple instances is surely
useful to a number of people. After all, you aren't forced to use these
facilities - I typically don't.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-01-17 14:53:53 | Re: With Function 'Chr', is it a bug? |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-01-17 14:08:02 | Re: With Function 'Chr', is it a bug? |