Re: Explicit config patch 7.2B4

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> 
> mlw writes:
> 
> > This allows
> >
> > postmaster -C /etc/pgsql/mydb.conf
> >
> > The "-C" option specifies a configuration file.
> 
> I'm still not happy about this, because given a pre-configured or already
> running system it is difficult or impossible to find out which
> configuration file is being used.  This offsets in many ways the improved
> usability you're trying to achieve.

I do not agree. A command line option which points to a configuration file IS
the standard way to start a server under UNIX.

> 
> I think an 'include' directive for postgresql.conf would solve this
> problem more generally (since it allows many more sharing models) and
> would also give us a good tool when we get to the configuration of
> alternative storage locations.

An include directive would be useful, obviously, but it is not in exclusion of
a more flexible configuration file.

> 
> Probably a command-line option could prove useful for testing purposes,
> etc., but I feel that by default the configuration should be written down
> in some easy-to-find file.  This is consistent with the move away from
> command-line options that we have made with postgresql.conf.

I am having the hardest time understanding your antipathy toward an explicit
configuration file. I just don't have any idea of why you are fighting it so
hardly. As far as I can see there is no reason not to do it, and every other
important server on UNIX supports this construct.

Again, I just don't get it. Standards are standards, and an explicit
configuration file is a defacto standard.

> 
> Probably we could make the option -C to mean "imagine an include directive
> written at the very start [or end?] of $PGDATA/postgresql.conf".  With the
> default empty file this would achieve exactly the same thing as you're
> trying.

The WHOLE idea is to get away from a configuration file mixed with the data. I
think the notion of having configuration contained in the same location as data
is bad. Furthermore, forcing this construct is worse.
> 
> Comments?

I really don't understand why you don't want this. There isn't a single
important UNIX server which forces its configuration file to be contained
within its data / operational directory. Not one. Why is postgresql "better"
for being less flexible?

What is the harm in including this functionality?