

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:pgman@candle.pha.pa.us] 
> Sent: 19 December 2001 02:07
> To: Thomas Swan
> Cc: Peter Eisentraut; PostgreSQL Development
> Subject: Re: Thoughts on the location of configuration files
> 
> 
> > >I suggest that we wire-in the location of the configuration files 
> > >into the binaries as ${sysconfdir} as determined by 
> configure.  This 
> > >would default to /usr/local/pgsql/etc, so the "everything in one 
> > >place" system is still somewhat preserved for those that 
> care.  For 
> > >the confused, we could for a while install into the data directory 
> > >files named "postgresql.conf", "pg_hba.conf", etc. that 
> only contain 
> > >text like "This file is now to be found at @sysconfdir@ by popular 
> > >demand."
> > >
> > In keeping with some of the more modern daemons (xinetd, 
> etc) you might 
> > want to consider something like /etc/pgsql.d/ as a 
> directory name.   
> >  Where as most folders with a .d contain a set of files or a 
> > referenced
> > by the main config file in /etc.  This is on a RedHat system, but I 
> > think the logic applies well if you are flexible the 
> location of the 
> > base system config directory.   (/usr/local/etc vs /etc, etc.)
> 
> I often wondered, if it is directory, why do they need the 
> '.d' in the name?  What possible purpose could it have except 
> to look ugly?  :-)

Isn't this a RedHat thing anyway? Precisely why I use Slackware...

Regards, Dave.

Wed, 19 Dec 2001 09:07:14 -0000
Dave Page <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>
Re: Thoughts on the location of configuration files





Dave Page wrote:

*snip*



In keeping with some of the more modern daemons (xinetd,etc) you might want to consider something like /etc/pgsql.d/ as a directory name.   Where as most folders with a .d contain a set of files or a referenced by the main config file in /etc.  This is on a RedHat system, but I think the logic applies well if you are flexible the location of the base system config directory.   (/usr/local/etc vs /etc, etc.)

I often wondered, if it is directory, why do they need the '.d' in the name?  What possible purpose could it have except to look ugly?  :-)

Isn't this a RedHat thing anyway? Precisely why I use Slackware...

Perhaps... I just thought I'd mention it as an observation.   Regardless,
being able to locate the config outside of the database directory is a Good
Thing (tm).  I'm really in favor of the /etc/postgresql.conf and support
files being put in /etc/pgsql/ or some other system config dir,--with-sysconfdir={something}
as specified at compile time...
@sysconfdir@ = /etc ...
postgresql.conf in @sysconfdir@ 
support files in @sysconfdir@/pgsql or someother place specified in postgresql.conf





Wed, 19 Dec 2001 04:29:05 -0600
Thomas Swan <tswan-lst@ics.olemiss.edu>
Re: Thoughts on the location of configuration files