Re: PostgreSQL missing in SuSE 10?

Hi,

On Sun, 9 Oct 2005, Tom Lane wrote:

> Gregory Youngblood <pgcluster(at)netio(dot)org> writes:
>> I've been using SuSE and PostgreSQL for a fairly long time. Recently
>> (last 12 months), I've noticed that the 9.x (9.2 and 9.3 specifically)
>> versions of SuSE do not include PostgreSQL on the CD install -- only on
>> the DVD. At first (9.2), I thought it was just a glitch that didn't get
>> fixed in 9.3. Now, it seems to have been deliberate.
>
> The right thing to do is complain.

It might also be good to ask Reinhard about this. (CC'ed to him)

Reinhard?
--
Devrim GUNDUZ
Kivi Bilişim Teknolojileri - http://www.kivi.com.tr
devrim~gunduz.org, devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr
http://www.gunduz.org
>From pgsql-general-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org Sun Oct 9 13:09:48 2005
X-Original-To: pgsql-general-postgresql(dot)org(at)localhost(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144])
by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 359A3D96A5
for <pgsql-general-postgresql(dot)org(at)localhost(dot)postgresql(dot)org>; Sun, 9 Oct 2005 13:09:47 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 23303-05
for <pgsql-general-postgresql(dot)org(at)localhost(dot)postgresql(dot)org>;
Sun, 9 Oct 2005 16:09:45 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B751D9691
for <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>; Sun, 9 Oct 2005 13:09:45 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl(at)localhost [127.0.0.1])
by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j99G9fft006667;
Sun, 9 Oct 2005 12:09:41 -0400 (EDT)
To: "Raymond O'Donnell" <rod(at)iol(dot)ie>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Comand line or postgresql.conf?
In-reply-to: <4349494A(dot)17509(dot)1E7751(at)localhost>
References: <4349494A(dot)17509(dot)1E7751(at)localhost>
Comments: In-reply-to "Raymond O'Donnell" <rod(at)iol(dot)ie>
message dated "Sun, 09 Oct 2005 16:46:02 +0100"
Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 12:09:41 -0400
Message-ID: <6666(dot)1128874181(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.006 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006]
X-Spam-Level:
X-Archive-Number: 200510/483
X-Sequence-Number: 84712

"Raymond O'Donnell" <rod(at)iol(dot)ie> writes:
> If I want to get dates in the European format, what's the difference
> between (a) including -o -e on the postmaster command line and (b)
> uncommenting datestyle='iso,dmy' in postgresql.conf?

> If there's no difference, which is the preferred/recommended method?

Command-line switches are mostly useful for quick-and-dirty manual
starts of the postmaster; which is something people do for testing
purposes, but certainly not in production environments. In a production
environment you should almost always edit postgresql.conf, for these
reasons:

1. The postgresql.conf file allows better documentation of what
you did.

2. To insert a command-line switch, you probably have to modify the
postmaster-launching script, which means you risk losing the change
during software updates.

3. Command-line switches override postgresql.conf entries, which means
it'll be impossible to change your mind later by editing postgresql.conf
and SIGHUP'ing; only a postmaster shutdown and restart can fix it if
you change your mind about something specified on the command line.
(Of course, this doesn't carry any weight for stuff that requires a
restart to change anyway, such as shared_buffers; but for stuff that
can be changed without a restart, such as the default datestyle,
I think it's foolish to foreclose the option.)

regards, tom lane