On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, mlw wrote: > > > 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.
Really? I would think it's easier to do this: su - pgsuper cd $PGDATA pwd Than to try to figure out what someone entered when they ran ./configure --config=... > 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. Wrong, I strongly disagree with this sentament. Conformity to standards for simple conformity's sake is as wrong as sticking to the old way because it's what we're all comfy with. > 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. If I do a .tar.gz install of apache, I get /usr/local/apache/conf, which is not the standard way you're listing. If I install openldap from .tar.gz, I get a /usr/local/etc/openldap directory, close, but still not the same. The fact is, it's the packagers that put things into /etc and whatnot, and I can see the postgresql RPMs or debs or whatever having that as the default, but for custom built software, NOTHING that I know of builds from source and uses /etc without a switch to tell it to, just like postgresql can do now. > I just don't understand what the resistance is, it makes no sense. I agree, but from the other side of the fence. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
