Re: location of the configuration files

Christopher Browne wrote:

>In the last exciting episode, cjs(at)cynic(dot)net (Curt Sampson) wrote:
>
>
>>On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Peter Bierman wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>What do you gain by having the postmaster config and the database
>>>data live in different locations?
>>>
>>>
>>You can then standardize a location for the configuration files.
>>
>>Everybody has room in /etc for another 10K of data. Where you have
>>room for something that might potentially be a half terrabyte of
>>data, and is not infrequently several gigabytes or more, is pretty
>>system-depenendent.
>>
>>
>
>Ah, but this has two notable problems:
>
>1. It assumes that there is "a location" for "the configuration files
> for /the single database instance./"
>
> If I have a second database instance, that may conflict.
>
>2. It assumes I have write access to /etc
>
> If I'm a Plain Old User, as opposed to root, I may only have
> read-only access to /etc.
>
>These conditions have both been known to occur...
>
>
These are not issues at all. You could put the configuration file
anywhere, just as you can for any UNIX service.

postmaster --config=/home/myhome/mydb.conf

I deal with a number of PG databases on a number of sites, and it is a
real pain in the ass to get to a PG box and hunt around for data
directory so as to be able to administer the system. What's really
annoying is when you have to find the data directory when someone else
set up the system.

Configuring postgresql via a configuration file which specifies all the
data, i.e. data directory, name of other configuration files, etc. is
the right way to do it. Even if you have reasons against it, even if you
think it is a bad idea, a bad standard is almost always a better
solution than an arcane work of perfection.

Personally, however, I think the configuration issue is a no-brainer and
I am amazed that people are balking. EVERY other service on a UNIX box
is configured in this way, why not do it this way in PostgreSQL? The
patch I submitted allowed the configuration to work as it currently
does, but allowed for the more standard configuration file methodology.

I just don't understand what the resistance is, it makes no sense.