| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | mlw <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>, 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>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: location of the configuration files |
| Date: | 2003-02-17 02:48:47 |
| Message-ID: | 1274.1045450127@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
mlw <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> 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?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | greg | 2003-02-17 02:54:08 | Re: Hard problem with concurrency |
| Previous Message | mlw | 2003-02-17 02:40:08 | Re: location of the configuration files |