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...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
referenced by the main config file in /etc. This is on a RedHat system, but I
think the logic applies well if you are flexible the location of the base system config directory. (/usr/local/etc vs /etc, etc.)I often wondered, if it is directory, why do they need the
'.d' in the name? What possible purpose could it have except
to look ugly? :-)
Isn't this a RedHat thing anyway? Precisely why I use Slackware...
@sysconfdir@ = /etc ...
postgresql.conf in @sysconfdir@
support files in @sysconfdir@/pgsql or someother place specified in postgresql.conf