From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Marc Slemko <marcs(at)znep(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Relocatable installs |
Date: | 2004-05-09 14:22:14 |
Message-ID: | 18473.1084112534@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Marc Slemko <marcs(at)znep(dot)com> writes:
> The downside to this is that it isn't as friendly for various
> command line tools that people run, since they then have to specify
> the path on the command line.
Exactly. Not only unfriendly, but quite error-prone, especially in
a multiple-install situation.
The fact that "everyone else does it this way" doesn't automatically
mean we should too. The fact of the matter is that most of those other
programs are not really designed to support multiple installs
conveniently. We've developed conventions that let us handle that,
and I don't wish to backslide.
The thing I like about the relative-path idea is that it actually
improves and extends our existing ability to support multiple
installs. I wonder whether we could even allow PGDATA to default
to a relative path (../data)?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2004-05-09 14:43:31 | Re: Relocatable installs |
Previous Message | Cassio Polpo de Campos | 2004-05-09 13:57:45 | Nested transactions |