From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Oliver Elphick <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: location of the configuration files |
Date: | 2003-02-16 18:15:45 |
Message-ID: | 28212.1045419345@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org> writes:
> The script's been out there for awhile. It does some things well, and some
> things not so well. The config files are still coresident with the database,
> and backup is more difficult than it can be. Meeting all these needs (with
> configure switches, configuration file directives, etc) would be a good
> thing.
Sure. I'm happy to change the software in a way that *allows* moving the
config files elsewhere. But it's not apparent to me why you insist on
forcing people who are perfectly happy with their existing configuration
arrangements to change them. I have not seen any reason in this
discussion why we can't support both a separate-config-location approach
and the traditional single-location one.
Please remember that the existing approach has been evolved over quite
a few releases. It may not satisfy the dictates of the FHS religion,
but it does meet some people's needs perfectly well. Let's look for a
solution that permits coexistence, rather than one that forces change
on people who don't need or want change.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-02-16 19:20:38 | Re: location of the configuration files |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-02-16 17:54:23 | Re: location of the configuration files |