Re: location of the configuration files - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

<br /><br /> Christopher Browne wrote:<br /><blockquote cite="midm3vfzoz4os.fsf@chvatal.cbbrowne.com" type="cite"><pre
wrap="">Inthe last exciting episode, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cjs@cynic.net">cjs@cynic.net</a>
(CurtSampson) wrote: </pre><blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, Peter Bierman wrote:
 
   </pre><blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">What do you gain by having the postmaster config and the database
data live in different locations?     </pre></blockquote><pre wrap="">You can then standardize a location for the
configurationfiles.
 

Everybody has room in /etc for another 10K of data. Where you have
room for something that might potentially be a half terrabyte of
data, and is not infrequently several gigabytes or more, is pretty
system-depenendent.   </pre></blockquote><pre wrap="">
Ah, but this has two notable problems:

1.  It assumes that there is "a location" for "the configuration files   for /the single database instance./"
   If I have a second database instance, that may conflict.

2.  It assumes I have write access to /etc
   If I'm a Plain Old User, as opposed to root, I may only have   read-only access to /etc.

These conditions have both been known to occur... </pre></blockquote> These are not issues at all. You could put the
configurationfile anywhere, just as you can for any UNIX service.<br /><br /> postmaster
--config=/home/myhome/mydb.conf<br/><br /> I deal with a number of PG databases on a number of sites, and it is a real
painin the ass to get to a PG box and hunt around for data directory so as to be able to administer the system. What's
reallyannoying is when you have to find the data directory when someone else set up the system.<br /><br /> Configuring
postgresqlvia a configuration file which specifies all the data, i.e. data directory, name of other configuration
files,etc. is the right way to do it. Even if you have reasons against it, even if you think it is a bad idea, a bad
standardis almost always a better solution than an arcane work of perfection.<br /><br /> Personally, however, I think
theconfiguration issue is a no-brainer and I am amazed that people are balking. EVERY other service on a UNIX box is
configuredin this way, why not do it this way in PostgreSQL? The patch I submitted allowed the configuration to work as
itcurrently does, but allowed for the more standard configuration file methodology.<br /><br /> I just don't understand
whatthe resistance is, it makes no sense.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />