Re: location of the configuration files

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Oliver Elphick <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk>, Vince Vielhaber <vev(at)michvhf(dot)com>, "J(dot) M(dot) Brenner" <doom(at)kzsu(dot)stanford(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: location of the configuration files
Date: 2003-02-16 02:06:20
Message-ID: 10842.1045361180@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org> writes:
> On Saturday 15 February 2003 20:19, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org> writes:
> Just exactly why does initdb need to drop any config files anywhere?

>> Because we'd like it to edit the correct datadir into the config file,
>> to take just the most obvious example.

> Shouldn't we be consistent and have initdb use the datadir set in the config
> file, which could be supplied by a ./configure switch?

That'd mean there is no way to perform an initdb into a nonstandard
location without first hand-preparing a config file. I don't much care
for that.

> I'm looking at a packager point of view here. The initdb is done well after
> the package is made, and installed. It would be ideal from this point of
> view to have things fully configured pre-initdb (and thus pre-packaging).

This point of view means that no post-configure knowledge can be
applied. We might as well forget the separate initdb step altogether
and have "make install" do it.

I realize that from a packager's point of view, the separate initdb step
is not very useful. But it is from my point of view.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ross J. Reedstrom 2003-02-16 02:21:51 Re: psql and readline
Previous Message Robert Treat 2003-02-16 01:34:16 Re: location of the configuration files