On Friday, July 26, 2013 6:18 PM Tom Lane wrote: Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> The main contention point I see is where conf.d lives; >> the two options are in $PGDATA or together with postgresql.conf. Tom >> and Robert, above, say it should be in $PGDATA; but this goes against >> Debian packaging and the Linux FHS (or whatever that thing is called).
> Ordinarily, if postgresql.conf is not in $PGDATA, it will be somewhere > that the postmaster does not (and should not) have write permissions > for. I have no objection to inventiny a conf.d subdirectory, I just say > that it must be under $PGDATA. The argument that this is against FHS > is utter nonsense, because anything we write there is not static > configuration, it's just data. > Come to think of it, maybe part of the reason we're having such a hard > time getting to consensus is that people are conflating the "snippet" > part with the "writable" part? I mean, if you are thinking you want > system-management tools to be able to drop in configuration fragments as > separate files, there's a case to be made for a conf.d subdirectory that > lives somewhere that the postmaster can't necessarily write. We just > mustn't confuse that with support for ALTER SYSTEM SET. I strongly > believe that ALTER SYSTEM SET must not be designed to write anywhere > outside $PGDATA. I think if we can design conf.d separately for config files of management tools, then it is better to have postgresql.auto.conf to be in $PGDATA rather than in $PGDATA/conf.d Kindly let me know if you feel otherwise, else I will update and send patch tomorrow. With Regards, Amit Kapila. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
