Re: Explicit configuration file

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> mlw writes:
>
> > One huge problem I have with symlinks is an admin has to "notice" that
> > two files in two separate directories, possibly on two different
> > volumes, are the same file, so it is very likely the ramifications of
> > editing one file are not obvious.
> >
> > If, in the database configuration file, pghbaconfig points to
> > "/etc/pg_hba.conf" it is likely, that the global significance of the
> > file is obvious.
>
> How about making the "local" pg_hba.conf symlinked to /etc/pg_hba.conf?
> Should be the same, no?
>
> I guess I'm losing the symlink debate, but anyway...
>
> Consider this: What if I want to share my postgresql.conf file (because
> of the clever performance tuning) but not my pg_hba.conf file (because I
> have completely different databases and users in each server). I think
> that case should be covered as long as we're moving in this direction.

In my patch, if no pghbaconfig setting is made, then the default is to
look in the data directory, as it has always done. If no pgdatadir is
specified, then it will get the information the old way too.

postmaster -C mysuperconfig.conf -D /u01/db

Should work fine.

>
> I think looming in the back is the answer, "add an 'include' directive to
> postgresql.conf".

Yikes. Obviously that is next, however do we need this functionality?
Will a few changes be enough, or do we need includes? Do we need
includes within includes?