Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of lun oct 03 12:34:22 -0300 2011:
> > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > > I am starting to question the value of config-only directories if pg_ctl
> > > stop doesn't work, or you have to specify a different directory for
> > > start and stop.
> >
> > Yup.
> >
> > > Did we not think of these things when we designed config-only
> > > directories? I don't even see this problem mentioned in our
> > > documentation.
> >
> > Yeah, we did. The people who were lobbying for the feature didn't care,
> > or possibly thought that somebody would fix it for them later.
>
> I think the main proponents are the Debian guys, and they don't use
> pg_ctl because they have their own pg_ctlcluster.
OK, so it is as messed up as I thought.
I am all fine for people lobbying for features, but not if they don't
work with our tools. pg_upgrade is certainly not going to use the
Debian start/stop tools unless Debian patches pg_upgrade.
So someone thought we would eventually fix the tools? I am unclear
exactly how to fix much of this. Even documenting some workarounds
seems impossible, e.g. pg_ctl restart.
I can't see any feature config-only directories adds that can't be
accomplished by symlinks. Even the ability to use a single
configuration file for multiple clusters can be done.
In summary, here is what I have found that works or is impossible with
config-only directories:
pg_ctl start specify config directorypg_ctl -w start impossiblepg_ctl restart impossiblepg_ctl
stop specify real data dirpg_ctl -w stop specify real data dirpg_ctl reload specify real data dir
Config-only directories seem to be only adding confusion. All possible
solutions seem to be adding more code and user requirements, which the
creation of symlinks avoids.
Is it time for me to ask on 'general' if removal of this feature is
warranted?
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +