Re: Explicit configuration file

Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > > I wonder if we should go one step further. Should we be specifying the
> > > config file on the command line _rather_ than the data directory. We
> > > could then specify the data directory location in the config file. That
> > > seems like the direction we should be headed in, though I am not sure it
> > > is worth the added headache of the switch.
> >
> > That is what the patch I submitted does.
> >
> > In the postgresql.conf file, you can specify where the data directory
> > is, as well as the pg_hba.conf file exists.
> >
> > The purpose I had in mind was to allow sharing of pg_hba.conf files and
> > keep configuration separate from data.
>
> My issue is that once we put the data directory location in
> postgresql.conf, we can't share that with other installs because they
> need different data locations, so what have we really gained _except_
> having the *.conf file in a different location.
>
> Seems any solution will need to allow the *.conf file itself to be
> shared.
>
> Here is an idea. Allow multiple -C parameters to be used, with the
> files read in order, with newer parameters overriding older ones. Seems
> this would be better than #includes.
>
> Now that I think of it, #include does the same thing. Instead of
> multiple -C, we have one file per instance and #include the global one,
> then set whatever we want.
>
> One major thing this does that _symlinks_ do not do is allow most
> parameters to be set globally for postgresql.conf, and for individual
> instances to override _part_ of the global file.
>
> Sorry I did not read the patch earlier. I was more responding to the
> emails.

There is no reason that:

postmaster -C /path/postgresql.conf -D /u01/mydb

Would not work. (Just don't specify a data diectory)