Re: config files in /data

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: config files in /data
Date: 2000-05-31 23:21:00
Message-ID: 200005312321.TAA03310@candle.pha.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:
> >> Right. How about `$PGDATA/internal'? Can't be more obvious. Perhaps with
> >> that we could also have initdb clean up a little more respectfully.
>
> > Are we talking about moveing pg_log and pg_shadow? Maybe call it
> > /global because the tables are global to all databases.
>
> We weren't, but it seems like a good idea now that you mention it.
> So it sounds like we are converging on:
>
> $PGDATA itself contains only directly-editable config files
>
> $PGDATA/base/ contains database subdirectories (same as now)
>
> $PGDATA/global/ contains installation-wide tables (pg_database,
> pg_shadow, their indices, etc)
>
> $PGDATA/internal/ contains anything else that is installation-wide
> but is not a table.
>
> The distinction between /global and /internal is a little bit artificial
> (which one does pg_log belong in? It's only sort of a table...), so
> maybe we'd be better off just putting those two together. Don't have
> a strong opinion either way.

This sounds good, and it keeps pg_hba.conf in the same place. Seems
/internal is just going to be confusing. Not sure.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2000-05-31 23:28:34 Re: uniqueness not always correct
Previous Message Tom Lane 2000-05-31 23:15:33 Re: config files in /data