Re: Bad UI design: pg_ctl and data_directory
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Bad UI design: pg_ctl and data_directory |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 25253.1306962601@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Bad UI design: pg_ctl and data_directory (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Bad UI design: pg_ctl and data_directory
Re: Bad UI design: pg_ctl and data_directory Re: Bad UI design: pg_ctl and data_directory |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes: > pg_ctl -D means different things depending on whether you are calling > "start" or "stop". For "start", pg_ctl wants the directory > postgresql.conf is in, and for "stop" it wants the directory > postmaster.pid is in. This means that if your .conf files are not in > the same directory as data_directory, you have to write special-case > code for start and stop. Well, the entire business of allowing the config files to be outside the data directory is bad design/poor UI. It's not pg_ctl that's the main problem here. > Given that having the .conf files in /etc is the default configuration > for both Red Hat and Debian, this seems like really poor UI design on > our part. I can't speak for Debian, but the above statement is 100% false for Red Hat. In any case, no RH system has ever expected users to issue pg_ctl start/stop directly, and I think the same is true for Debian, so the bizarre design wouldn't matter to us even if the case did apply. > It actually seems relatively easy to fix this without breaking > backwards-compatibility. No, it isn't. You're making way too many assumptions about where things really were and what arguments were given to pg_ctl start. We went around on this before, which is why it's not "fixed" already. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: