Tom Lane wrote:

mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

The idea of using a "directory" puts us back to using symlinks to share files.

So? If you want to share files, you're probably sharing all three
config files and don't need a separate directory at all. This is
not a sufficient argument to make me buy into the mess of letting
people choose nonstandard configuration file names --- especially
when most of the opposite camp seems to be more interested in choosing
*standard* names for things. Why does that policy stop short at the
directory name?

symlinks suck. Sorry Tom, but they are *BAD* in a production server. You can not add comments to symlinks. Most of the admins I know, myself included, HATE symlinks and use them as a last resort. Requiring symlinks is just pointless, we are talking about a few lines of code hat has nothing to do with performance.

The patch that I submitted allows PostgreSQL to work as it always has, but adds the ability for a configuration file to do what is normally done with fixed names in $PGDATA.

I have said before, I do not like policy, I like flexibility, forcing a directory is similarly restricting as requiring the files in $PGDATA.

Why is this such a problem? MANY people want to configure PostgreSQL this way, but the patch I submitted allows it, but does not force anything. Any configuration solution that requires symlinks is flawed.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
   (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])

Reply via email to