Re: [HACKERS] location of the configuration files

[mlw]

Christopher Browne wrote:

In the last exciting episode, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (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.