Re: Explicit config patch 7.2B4

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

> That's been Mark's primary argument all along, and what it ignores is
> that the standard behavior for daemons is designed around the assumption
> that a system is running only one copy of any given daemon. That's a
> fine assumption for most daemons but an unacceptable one for Postgres.

I'd say that's not completely accurate. I've seen and run sites with
more than one {httpd, sendmail} running. The basic idea is:

* If no config file is specified, either look for it in a standard
place, or complain bitterly. Sendmail looks for /etc/sendmail.cf
(usually); Apache looks in a place configured at compile time
(/etc/httpd/conf/httpd.conf on RedHat systems).

* If a config file *is* specified, use it. It tells you where to look
for other stuff (queue directory, webserver root or whatever).

The above scheme is used by many different daemons and is *perfectly*
conducive to running multiple copies. What makes you say it isn't?

> I'm prepared to accept some kind of compromise on this issue, but I'm
> really tired of hearing the useless "other daemons do it this way"
> argument. Could we hear some more-relevant argument?

How is a patch that (a) perfectly preserves existing behavior, and (b)
allows for more flexibility in configuration, a bad thing?

I'm not going to lose a lot of sleep if Mark's patch isn't adopted. I
will say, however, that as a long-time Un*x sysadmin (Ultrix, Irix,
Solaris, BSD, Linux) PG's method of configuration struck me as a bit
weird when I first saw it. It obviously does the job, but I like the
idea of giving users and packagers a configuration method that's still
sufficiently flexible and is more familiar to some.

My $0.02...

-Doug
--
Let us cross over the river, and rest under the shade of the trees.
--T. J. Jackson, 1863