On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 13:44, mlw wrote: > The debate on the configuration file sparked a memory of an old patch I > submitted in 7.1 days. > > One of the things I do not like about PostgreSQL is, IMHO, is a > backwards configuration process. Rather than specify a data directory, > the administrator should specify a database configuration file. Within > the configuration file is the location and names of the data directory > and other information. Most admins want a central location for this > information. > > One of the things that is frustrating to me, is to have to hunt down > where the data directory is so that I can administrate a DB. It can be > anywhere, in any directory on any volume. If you had, say, a > /usr/local/pgsql/admin, then you could have mydb.conf which could then > be checked in to CVS. A standard location for configuration files is a > more normal process as the location of the data directory is less so. I > just don't think the PG data directory should not contain configuration > information. > > The original patch allowed a user to specify the location of the > postgresql.conf file, rather than assuming it lived in $PGDATA > Also included in that patch, was the ability to specify the location of > the PGDATA directory as well as the names of the pg_hba.conf and other > configuration files. > > It also allowed the user to use PG as it has always worked, The patch > was not applied because a better solution was supposedly coming, but > that was two major revisions ago. I would still like to see this > functionality. Would anyone else? >
I'm going to be lazy and ask if you can post what the better solution that was coming was (or a link to the thread). While I'll grant you that the "it's coming" argument is pretty weak after two releases, that fact that it may have been a better solution could still hold up. Robert Treat ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
