Re: Location of the configuration files, round 2

One of the things that I HATE about this discussion is that everyone 
wants to put limits on configurability.

I am an old fashion UNIX guy, capability without enforcing policy! 
Adding an ability is different than enforcing a policy. All I any to do 
is add the capability of configuration in a way that most admins would 
be used to.

If people want an FHS compatible install, I don't care. I want to enable 
it, but it should not be enforced.


Kevin Brown wrote:

>Wow, there's been a lot of discussion on this issue!
>
>
>While it won't address some of the issues that have been brought up,
>there is one very simple thing we can do that will help sysadmins
>quite a lot: eliminate the postmaster's use of $PGDATA, and force the
>data directory to be specified on the command line.  It's fine if the
>shell scripts still use $PGDATA, but the postmaster should not.
>
>The reason is that at least it'll always be possible for
>administrators to figure out where the data is by looking at the
>output of 'ps'.
>
>
>While I'd prefer to also see a GUC variable added to the config file
>that tells the postmaster where to look for the data, the above will
>at least simplify the postmaster's code (since the logic for dealing
>with $PGDATA can be eliminated) while eliminating some of the trouble
>administrators currently have with it.
>
>
>
>  
>