Re: Installation layout is still hazardous for shared prefixes
От | Lamar Owen |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Installation layout is still hazardous for shared prefixes |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 39D4AB85.F55ADE2E@wgcr.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Installation layout is still hazardous for shared prefixes ("Oliver Elphick" <olly@lfix.co.uk>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: [useful an complete discussion of sbin-style programs and their place snipped] > (Not sure about pg_dump/pg_dumpall/pg_restore; are these of any > significant use to non-superusers?) This would keep createuser/dropuser > out of the shared bin directory, which certainly seem like the names > most likely to cause conflicts. pg_dump, yes, as a user might want to dump his own database. > The man pages probably need to adopt the same division as the exes, > ie some to /usr/local/man and some to /usr/local/pgsql/man. Currently, since there is no collision in the executables there have been no collisions in the man pages. But, I had a radical idea about the man pages -- why not package a 'man database' as a dump, let someone restore that dump into a database, then you can use SQL to access your man pages. Of course, you still need docs outside the database, but, with TOAST, this is possible. Comments? > Note that it'd be a real bad idea to abandon the option of the > "traditional" install-tree configuration. For people like me, with > three or four versions of Postgres hanging around on the same machine, > it's critical to be able to install everything into a single private > directory tree. No one is advocating removing the 'traditional' packaging from the options -- least of all me. Choice and flexibility are my bywords. Currently, the PostgreSQL installation is very inflexible WRT the directories under the installation dir. -- Lamar Owen WGCR Internet Radio 1 Peter 4:11
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: