From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Brown <kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: location of the configuration files |
Date: | 2003-02-14 18:37:22 |
Message-ID: | 200302141837.h1EIbMa23898@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Kevin Brown wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > The big question is whether PGDATA is still our driving config variable,
> > and PGCONFIG/-C is just an additional option, or whether we are moving
> > in a direction where PGCONFIG/-C is going to be the driving value, and
> > data_dir is going to be read as part of that.
>
> I'm actually leaning towards PGCONFIG + PGDATA.
>
> Yeah, it may be a surprise given my previous arguments, but I can't
> help but think that the advantages you get with PGDATA will also exist
> for PGCONFIG.
>
> My previous arguments for removing PGDATA from postmaster can be dealt
> with by fixing pg_ctl to use explicit command line directives when
> invoking postmaster -- no changes to postmaster needed. PGCONFIG
> would be no different in that regard.
I see your point --- pg_ctl does a PGDATA trick when passed -D:
-D)
shift
# pass environment into new postmaster
PGDATA="$1"
export PGDATA
It should pass -D just like it was given.
> Sorry if I seem a big gung-ho on the administrator point of view, but
> as a system administrator myself I understand and feel their pain.
Making things easy for sysadmins is an important feature of PostgreSQL.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2003-02-14 18:50:17 | Re: location of the configuration files |
Previous Message | Kevin Brown | 2003-02-14 18:35:31 | Re: Incremental backup |