On Sunday 11 April 2004 11:56, pgsql@mohawksoft.com wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 03:53:49PM -0400, pgsql@mohawksoft.com wrote:
> For all the people who would like PostgreSQL to fit in a FHS system,
> easily, they will probably use it. In fact, I would bet real money, that
> if this functionality is incorporated into PostgreSQL, it will become the
> defacto methodology for the various distributions.
>
IIRC (and admittidly I am being too lazy to look it up here) but doesn't the
FHS require the pid file to be in a specific location (/tmp?) ISTR that this
became an issue last time around, since your patch didn't actually allow full
FHS compliance (while admitidly allowing more compliance, but that's like
being a little pregnant) So this is the one thing I think is a potential
sticking point... how do we prevent users from blowing up thier databases by
specifying multiple PID locations for the same DATA dir? Anything that makes
this easier to do is A Bad Thing (tm) because it can certainly lead to
irrecoverable data corruption.
One other thought relevant to this topic... one thing I have always wished for
was some type of GUC (for lack of a better mechanism) that would tell me from
inside the database what PGDATA path is currently being used to power the
database. I've certainly seen enough cases of people modifying the /wrong/
postgresql.conf on thier systems to think that the ability to figure out
which configuration files you are using inside the db would certainly be a
bonus... and this would have also solved the original complaint of not
knowing where the $PGDATA path was... connect to the database and query for
it...
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
