Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > On 10/03/2011 02:15 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Andrew Dunstan wrote: > >> > >> On 10/03/2011 12:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >>> I was never exactly thrilled with the separate-config-directory design > >>> to start with, so I'm probably not the person to opine on whether we > >>> could get away with removing it. > >>> > >>> > >> The horse has well and truly bolted. We'd have a major row if anyone > >> tried to remove it. Let's not rehash old battles. Our only option is to > >> make it work as best we can. > > I disagree. If people were using it we would have had many more bug > > reports about pg_ctl not working. > > > > No, that's an indication people aren't using pg_ctl, not that they > aren't using separate config dirs.
So, you are saying that people who want config-only directories are just not people who normally use pg_ctl, because if they were, they would have reported the bug? That seems unlikely. I will admit the Gentoo case is exactly that. So we just document that config-only directories don't work for pg_ctl and pg_upgrade? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
