Re: Summary of new configuration file and data directory locations

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Summary of new configuration file and data directory locations
Date: 2002-02-07 19:49:07
Message-ID: 15237.1013111347@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> I am confused why we can't just make the directory be owned by
> PostgreSQL super user with 700 permissions, like we do now with /data.

We could do it that way, but then the set of parameters Peter proposed
is quite unreasonable; there should be exactly one, namely the name of
the config directory.

Now that I think about it, that actually seems a pretty reasonable idea.
Just allow all the hand-maintained config files to be placed in a
separate directory, which we treat just like $PGDATA as far as
permissions go. If you want a backwards-compatible setup, you need only
set the config directory equal to $PGDATA, and you're done.

regards, tom lane

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message D. Hageman 2002-02-07 20:16:54 Re: Threaded PosgreSQL server
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-02-07 19:40:18 Re: Summary of new configuration file and data directory locations