Re: pg_config, pg_service.conf, postgresql.conf ....
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_config, pg_service.conf, postgresql.conf .... |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 16226.1140538565@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_config, pg_service.conf, postgresql.conf .... ("Mark Woodward" <pgsql@mohawksoft.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_config, pg_service.conf, postgresql.conf ....
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
"Mark Woodward" <pgsql@mohawksoft.com> writes: >> pg_config --sysconfdir > Hmm, that doesn't show up with pg_config --help. It's in 8.1. > One of my difficulties with PostgreSQL is that there is no "standardized" > location for where everything is located, i.e. self documenting. If you > know that "/usr/local/pgsql/etc/pg_service.conf" will contain a list of > services, that is really awesome. I can't see a use-case for this at all, certainly not one that would override the reasons why there isn't a standardized location already. If we tried to force this to happen, it would* break building temp installations without root, because you'd not be ableto list the installation in the central file* get modified by packagers to fit their ideas of filesystem layout, hencethe "standard" location would be no such thing The concept really only works for one root-made installation on a single filesystem layout, and in that situation you hardly need it anyway, because you already know where the database is gonna be (eg with RPM installations it's gonna be /var/lib/pgsql/data). I don't see any plausibility to the concept of a configuration file that is in a more predictable place than the database itself is. I certainly don't see any plausibility to the idea that we're going to be able to force such a file to exist and be accurate in the face of admin errors/oversights, which is basically the situation you are presenting as the use-case. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: