Re: Explicit configuration file

On Tuesday 11 December 2001 10:05 am, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> > Isn't it easier to just use symlinks?

> Maybe. Sometimes. In some cases. But even in those cases, easier is not
> always better.

> We've had "the symlink discussion" from time to time in the past. Some
> folks are very comfortable with symlinks as part of the PostgreSQL
> design model. But I'm *very* uncomfortable with symlinks in that role.

I most assuredly agree with Thomas and Mark on this issue. While some are
very comfortable with symlinks in this role, I for one am not. I would like
postgresql.conf to not live in PGDATA. I would like postgresql.conf to not
get overwritten if I have to re-initdb. I would, in fact, like to be able to
put several postgresql.conf's, named differently, too, in /etc/pgsql for
consistency with things such as BIND, xinetd, sendmail, and virtually any
other reasonable daemon.

Suppose I host three databases on one box. One database is for a client
named varitor, one is for ramifordistat, and one is for wgcr. I would love
to have a /etc/pgsql with the three files varitor.conf, ramifordistat.conf,
and wgcr.conf. Each config file would be able to specify the datadir (just
like a webserver's config file specifies a pageroot, or BIND's named.conf
specifies its datadir), as well as other unique config data such as IP
address and/or port to bind to. Then, postmaster could be started on these
three config files with, perhaps, 'postmaster
--config-file=/etc/pgsql/wgcr.conf' and postmaster loads, with the right
configuration, without specifying a datadir.

To me, this is the natural way to do things. Further, it is easily scripted,
as well as easily packaged. And the vast majority of other daemons do it
this way.

And allowing this way is not the same thing as trying to prevent it from
being the existing way -- they can coexist.

I just think, Peter, that you're being a mite rigid on this one.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11