Re: location of the configuration files

On Thu, 2003-02-13 at 15:08, mlw wrote:
> Stephan Szabo wrote:
>
> Re-read my statement and yours about the case you were mentioning. ;)
>
> Sure, putting the files in /etc lets you find them easily. However, if
>
> you're doing things like finding configuration made by someone else and
>
> said configuration isn't in /etc (which if they wanted to they could do
>
> now with symlinks I believe - yes symlinks aren't a complete solution,
> but
>
> I think they're reasonable on most of our current ports) then you still
>
> have to search the system for the configuration file, except now it
> might
>
> not even be postgresql.conf. That's why I said the two issues aren't the
>
> same.
>

Actually, I'd almost go so far as to say it will make it worse. In the
current system, if you can figure out where $PGDATA is, you've found
everything you need for that installation. In the new system, there's no
telling where people will put things, and it certainly won't be any
easier to find it. THinking on the above Stephan, you'd almost have to
require that the config file be called postgresql.conf in order to run,
anything else leads to real scary scenario's.

> On Thu, 13 Feb 2003, mlw wrote:
>
> I have absolutely no problem debating and augmenting the feature. None
> what so ever, I am more pushing to get momentum to actually do it.

Stick with it, I think most of us here can see the value in the option,
but there are valid concerns that it be implemented correctly.
Personally I think a postgresql installation is much more like an apache
installation, which generally contains all of the files (data and
config) under /usr/local/apache. Maybe someone can dig more to see if
that system is more appropriate a comparison than something like bind.

Robert Treat