Re: Thoughts on the location of configuration files

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us]
> Sent: 19 December 2001 02:07
> To: Thomas Swan
> Cc: Peter Eisentraut; PostgreSQL Development
> Subject: Re: Thoughts on the location of configuration files
>
>
> > >I suggest that we wire-in the location of the configuration files
> > >into the binaries as ${sysconfdir} as determined by
> configure. This
> > >would default to /usr/local/pgsql/etc, so the "everything in one
> > >place" system is still somewhat preserved for those that
> care. For
> > >the confused, we could for a while install into the data directory
> > >files named "postgresql.conf", "pg_hba.conf", etc. that
> only contain
> > >text like "This file is now to be found at @sysconfdir@ by popular
> > >demand."
> > >
> > In keeping with some of the more modern daemons (xinetd,
> etc) you might
> > want to consider something like /etc/pgsql.d/ as a
> directory name.
> > Where as most folders with a .d contain a set of files or a
> > referenced
> > by the main config file in /etc. This is on a RedHat system, but I
> > think the logic applies well if you are flexible the
> location of the
> > base system config directory. (/usr/local/etc vs /etc, etc.)
>
> I often wondered, if it is directory, why do they need the
> '.d' in the name? What possible purpose could it have except
> to look ugly? :-)

Isn't this a RedHat thing anyway? Precisely why I use Slackware...

Regards, Dave.