Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > On 10/03/2011 02:25 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > 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. > > As Dave has pointed out there are many more people that use it, probably > most notably Debian/Ubuntu users. > > > So we just document that config-only directories don't work for pg_ctl > > and pg_upgrade? > > > > I'd rather not if it can be avoided.
OK, please propose and "avoid" plan? I can't come up with one that makes any sense. -- 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
