Re: PGDATA confusion

On 16 August 2012 04:00, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 12:32:13PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Thom Brown wrote:
>> > > So if one set PGDATA to somewhere which had no database files at all,
>> > > but just postgresql.conf, it could still work (assuming it, in turn,
>> > > set data_directory correctly), but not vice versa. ?It would make more
>> > > sense to call it PGCONFIG, although I'm not proposing that, especially
>> > > since PGDATA makes sense when it comes to initdb.
>> > >
>> > > There are probably plenty of other places in the docs which also don't
>> > > adequately describe PGDATA or -D.
>> > >
>> > > Any disagreements? ?If not, should I write a patch (since someone will
>> > > probably accuse me of volunteering anyway) or would someone like to
>> > > commit some adjustments?
>> >
>> > No opinions on this?
>>
>> Yes. I had kept it to deal with later. Please work on a doc patch to
>> try to clean this up. pg_upgrade just went through this confusion and I
>> also was unhappy at how vague things are in this area.
>>
>> Things got very confusing with pg_upgrade when PGDATA pointed to the
>> configuration directory and the data_directory GUC pointed to the data
>> directory.
>
> I have applied the attached doc patch for PG 9.3 to clarify PGDATA.

Thanks Bruce.

--
Thom