Re: PostgreSQL configuration

From: pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com
To: "Mark Kirkwood" <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>
Cc: pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com, "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com, "Christopher Browne" <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL configuration
Date: 2004-04-12 03:25:34
Message-ID: 17204.24.91.171.78.1081740334.squirrel@mail.mohawksoft.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com wrote:
>
>>
>>IMHO my patch can do this in a self
>>documenting way, thus making it easier to do, i.e.
>>
>>postmaster -C /etc/postgres/fundb.conf
>>postmaster -C /etc/postgres/testdb.conf
>>
>>I think that is far more intuitive than:
>>
>>postmaster -D /some/path/who/knows/where/fundb
>>postmaster -D /another/path/i/don/t/know/testdb
>>
>>
>>
>
> To be honest - to me, both these look about the same on the
> intuitiveness front :-)

OK, I am yelling in a sound proof room. :-)

>
> I do not like lots of command line agruments so usually use :
>
> export PGDATA=/var/pgdata/<version>
> pg_ctl start
>
> I realize that I cannot objectively argue that this is intuitively
> better...it is just what I prefer.
>
>>It is frustrating. I think this is important, as I would not have written
>>and maintained it otherwise, but by being a somewhat subjective feature I
>>can't make any iron clad arguments for it. I can only say it makes
>>administration easier for those who whould like PostgreSQL administered
>>this way. If the prevailing view is "we don't think so," then it doesn't
>>get put it, but it doesn't make my arguments any less valid.
>>
>>
>>
> I completely agree. We are discussing what we would prefer - which is a
> valid thing to do. Clearly if most people prefer most of what is in your
> patch, then it would be silly to ignore it!
>
> So anyway, here is my vote on it :
>
> i) the inlcude - I like it
> ii) the -C switch - could be persuaded (provided some safety is there -
> like mutually exclusive with -D or PGDATA)
> iii) the pid file - don't like it

i) include, I don't care too much, I like it, but it isn't important to
me. (ironic, yes?)

ii) I think the -C switch *WITH* the -D switch has viable usability.
Consider this, you are testing two different database layouts and/or RAID
controllers. You could easily bounce back and forth from *identical*
configurations like this:

postmaster -C /etc/postgres/postgresql.conf -D /OLDRAID
Test performance on various clients.

postmaster -C /etc/postgres/postgresql.conf -D /NEWRAID
Test performance again with same clients.

In the above example, you don't need to configure the two systems separately.

iii) I don't like the PID file at all. Not one bit, but I had a few people
ask for it in the patch, it works as advertized and expected. It isn't my
place to say how someone should use something. One of my customers wanted
it, so I provided them with it. That is the beauty of open source.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message pgsql 2004-04-12 03:50:22 Re: PostgreSQL configuration
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2004-04-12 03:19:07 Re: [GENERAL] pg_ctl written in c