Tom Lane wrote: > I am happy to design an arrangement that allows you not to depend on > PGDATA if you don't want to. But I don't see why you need to break > my configuration procedures in order to fix yours. As I outlined last > night, it's possible to do what you want without breaking backwards > compatibility for those that like PGDATA.
Yes, I agree. I hadn't really thought of all the possible benefits of PGDATA. Sorry. :-( Would you agree that it would be a beneficial change to have pg_ctl pass explicit arguments to postmaster? It would go a long way towards eliminating most of the situations I described. A warning in the documentation about the consequences of using PGDATA might not be a bad idea, either... -- Kevin Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
