Kevin Brown wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > Kevin Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I agree with your assessment for the most part, except for PGDATA. > > > There's no good reason I can think of for the postmaster to look at > > > it. > > > > The other side of that coin is, what's the good reason to remove it? > > There's a long way between "I don't want my setup to depend on PGDATA" > > and "I don't think your setup should be allowed to depend on PGDATA". > > If you don't want to use it, then don't use it. Why do you need to > > tell me how I'm allowed to run my installation? > > I'm not talking about getting rid of ALL dependency on PGDATA in our > entire distribution, only postmaster's. > > Recall that the main purpose of making any of these changes at all is > to make life easier for the guys who have to manage the systems that > will be running PostgreSQL. Agreed? > > So: imagine you're the newly-hired DBA and your boss points you to the > system and says "administrate the database on that". You go over to > the computer and start looking around. > > You do a "ps" and see a postmaster process running. You know that > it's the process that is listening for connections. The "ps" listing > only says "/usr/bin/postmaster". No arguments to clue you in, > nothing. Where do you look to figure out where the data is? How do > you figure out what port it's listening on?
If you want ps to display the data dir, you should use -D. Remember, it is mostly important for multiple postmaster, so if you are doing that, just use -D, but don't prevent single-postmaster folks from using PGDATA. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
