Re: Why conf.d should be default, and auto.conf and recovery.conf should be in it
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Why conf.d should be default, and auto.conf and recovery.conf should be in it |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 31712.1389897960@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Why conf.d should be default, and auto.conf and recovery.conf should be in it (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Why conf.d should be default, and auto.conf and
recovery.conf should be in it
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Another point here is that hard-wiring a config directory location >> into the executables completely breaks many scenarios for running >> multiple clusters with the same executables. > Therefore the proposal is not to hardwire the location in the > executables. At least some people seem to be advocating that, even if I misunderstood whether you were. I'm fine if the proposal is that postgresql.conf include "include_dir conf.d" by default (where that's read as relative to postgresql.conf's own directory). Even better if it's not terribly difficult for a packager to change that, because I think some will want to. We could possibly reduce the need for packagers to change it if we made it be "include_dir postgresql.d", because conf.d is a damn generic name for something that might be in the same /etc directory as configs for other packages. regards, tom lane PS: off topic, but isn't ParseConfigDirectory leaking the result of AbsoluteConfigLocation? In both normal and error paths?
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: