On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 13:44, mlw wrote:
> The debate on the configuration file sparked a memory of an old patch I 
> submitted in 7.1 days.
> One of the things I do not like about PostgreSQL is, IMHO, is a 
> backwards configuration process. Rather than specify a data directory, 
> the administrator should specify a database configuration file. Within 
> the configuration file is the location and names of the data directory 
> and other information. Most admins want a central location for this 
> information.
> One of the things that is frustrating to me, is to have to hunt down 
> where the data directory is so that I can administrate a DB. It can be 
> anywhere, in any directory on any volume. If you had, say, a 
> /usr/local/pgsql/admin, then you could have mydb.conf which could then 
> be checked in to CVS. A standard location for configuration files is a 
> more normal process as the location of the data directory is less so. I 
> just don't think the PG data directory should not contain configuration 
> information.
> The original patch allowed a user to specify the location of the 
> postgresql.conf file, rather than assuming it lived in $PGDATA
> Also included in that patch, was the ability to specify the location of 
> the PGDATA directory as well as the names of the pg_hba.conf and other 
> configuration files.
> It also allowed the user to use PG as it has always worked, The patch 
> was not applied because a better solution was supposedly coming, but 
> that was two major revisions ago. I would still like to see this 
> functionality. Would anyone else?

I'm going to be lazy and ask if you can post what the better solution
that was coming was (or a link to the thread). While I'll grant you that
the "it's coming" argument is pretty weak after two releases, that fact
that it may have been a better solution could still hold up.

Robert Treat

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to