Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The script's been out there for awhile. It does some things well, and some
> things not so well. The config files are still coresident with the database,
> and backup is more difficult than it can be. Meeting all these needs (with
> configure switches, configuration file directives, etc) would be a good
> thing.
Sure. I'm happy to change the software in a way that *allows* moving the
config files elsewhere. But it's not apparent to me why you insist on
forcing people who are perfectly happy with their existing configuration
arrangements to change them. I have not seen any reason in this
discussion why we can't support both a separate-config-location approach
and the traditional single-location one.
Please remember that the existing approach has been evolved over quite
a few releases. It may not satisfy the dictates of the FHS religion,
but it does meet some people's needs perfectly well. Let's look for a
solution that permits coexistence, rather than one that forces change
on people who don't need or want change.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
