<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
Dave Page wrote:<br>
<br>
*snip*<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:FED2B709E3270E4B903EB0175A49BCB1047390(at)dogbert(dot)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">In keeping with some of the more modern daemons (xinetd,etc) you might want to consider something like /etc/pgsql.d/ as a directory name. Where as most folders with a .d contain a set of files or a <br>referenced by the main config file in /etc. This is on a RedHat system, but I <br>think the logic applies well if you are flexible the location of the base system config directory. (/usr/local/etc vs /etc, etc.)<br></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">I often wondered, if it is directory, why do they need the <br>'.d' in the name? What possible purpose could it have except <br>to look ugly? :-)<br></pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!----><br>Isn't this a RedHat thing anyway? Precisely why I use Slackware...</pre>
</blockquote>
Perhaps... I just thought I'd mention it as an observation. Regardless,
being able to locate the config outside of the database directory is a Good
Thing (tm). I'm really in favor of the /etc/postgresql.conf and support
files being put in /etc/pgsql/ or some other system config dir,--with-sysconfdir={something}
as specified at compile time...<br>
<blockquote>@sysconfdir@ = /etc ...<br>
postgresql.conf in @sysconfdir@ <br>
support files in @sysconfdir@/pgsql or someother place specified in postgresql.conf<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>