| From: | pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | PostgreSQL configuration |
| Date: | 2004-04-08 12:01:27 |
| Message-ID: | 18059.24.91.171.78.1081425687.squirrel@mail.mohawksoft.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
About a year or two ago I submitted a configuration patch that allowed
PostgreSQL to be fully configured by postgresql.conf -- enabling data and
configuration to be in separate locations. The idea was that, like most
UNIX systems, that the configuration file could be stored in the /etc
directory (or /etc/postgres or /usr/etc or whatever) and it could contain
all the various system directory and file locations, like pg_hba, and so
on.
There was a lot of debate about it, and I don't recall many arguments
against this sort of configuration strategy, only that there was a dislike
of my patch because it wasn't an all encompassing re-write of the
configuration system.
I have been maintaining it for the various versions of PostgreSQL since
that time for my own use, can we re-open this debate? It has been a good
deal of time with no progress, and I don't think anyone can deny that a
more flexable configuration based on the idea that configuration and data
are in SEPARATE locations is important.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dennis Bjorklund | 2004-04-08 13:25:16 | Re: PostgreSQL configuration |
| Previous Message | Gaetano Mendola | 2004-04-08 11:49:59 | idle in transaction with JDBC interface |