Bruce Momjian wrote:
> The big question is whether PGDATA is still our driving config variable,
> and PGCONFIG/-C is just an additional option, or whether we are moving
> in a direction where PGCONFIG/-C is going to be the driving value, and
> data_dir is going to be read as part of that.

I'm actually leaning towards PGCONFIG + PGDATA.

Yeah, it may be a surprise given my previous arguments, but I can't
help but think that the advantages you get with PGDATA will also exist

My previous arguments for removing PGDATA from postmaster can be dealt
with by fixing pg_ctl to use explicit command line directives when
invoking postmaster -- no changes to postmaster needed.  PGCONFIG
would be no different in that regard.

Sorry if I seem a big gung-ho on the administrator point of view, but
as a system administrator myself I understand and feel their pain.

Kevin Brown                                           [EMAIL PROTECTED]

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

Reply via email to