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

Quoth pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com ("Mark Woodward"):
>> Mark Woodward wrote:
>>> As a guy who administers a lot of systems, sometimes over the span of
>>> years, I can not understate the need for "a" place for the admin to
>>> find
>>> what databases are on the machine and where they are located.
>>>
>>> Your assertion that this file would "only works for one root-made
>>> installation on a single filesystem layout" totally misses the point.
>>> The
>>> point is that me, a consultant, could find where the database is,
>>> easily.
>>> Given a large system, say it has 3 or 4 separate databases on it. How do
>>> you know which is what?
>>>
>>
>> I think you make a good point. However you probably need to include the
>> location of the server software too (in case you run multiple versions).
>> This means there really needs to be a standard location (e.g
>> /usr/local/etc, /etc ...???? on win32) for this "cluster registration"
>> file, and you need to list (at minimum):
>>
>> PGHOME
>> DATADIR
>> PORT
>> USER
>
> I'm not sure that I agree. At least in my experience, I wouldn't
> have more than one installation of PostgreSQL in a production
> machine. It is potentially problematic.

Curious. On our production machines we seldom have less than four
PostgreSQL instances on any given machine.

Perhaps we're wrong and should stop that, but I'd need have to have
evidence WAY more specific than some devoid-of-details claim of "It is
potentially problematic."

>> As Tom hinted, to be effective, this would need to be maintained by
>> the installation process, otherwise it is just another source of
>> confusion (like the Oracle site I went to last year where they had
>> an incorrect /etc/oratab - I wasted *hours* on that....)
>
> At least with "oratab" using standards would help.
>
> I can tell you, I have tried to find PostgreSQL installs after a
> power outage and it is hell. If people know there is *a* standard
> and are expected to use it, they will, they want their systems to
> run. As it is PostgreSQL has no standard and provides no mechanism
> to do this.

What is happening is entirely proper.

PostgreSQL provides mechanisms; it does NOT impose policies. This is
not a mistake; it is intentional.

If you require a policy, then YOU are free to choose the policy that
YOU need. You're not forced to accept other peoples' policies that
may conflict with things in your environment.
--
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="gmail.com" in String.concat "@" [name;tld];;
http://linuxdatabases.info/info/lisp.html
Everyone has a photographic memory, some don't have film.