Re: location of the configuration files
Mark Woodward <pgsql@mohawksoft.com>
From: mlw <pgsql@mohawksoft.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Kevin Brown <kevin@sysexperts.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Date: 2003-02-13T15:19:11Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote: >mlw <pgsql@mohawksoft.com> writes: > > >>Here is the test, configure a server, with sendmail, named, apache, and >>PostgreSQL. Tell me which of these systems doesn't configure right. >> >> > >AFAIK, only one of those four is designed to support multiple instances >running on a single machine. This is not unrelated. > > > While I will agree with you on sendmail and named, Apache is often run more than once with different options. Furthermore, I hate to keep bringing it up, Oracle does use the configuration file methodology. Tom, I just don't understand why this is being resisted so vigorously. What is wrong with starting PostgreSQL as: postmaster -C /etc/postgresql.conf UNIX admins would love to have this as a methodology, I don't think you can deny this, can you? I, as a long term PG user, really really want this, because in the long run, it makes PostgreSQL easier to administer. If a patch allows PG to function as it does, but also allows a configuration file methodology, why not?