Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 10/03/2011 02:15 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >>
> >> On 10/03/2011 12:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> I was never exactly thrilled with the separate-config-directory design
> >>> to start with, so I'm probably not the person to opine on whether we
> >>> could get away with removing it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> The horse has well and truly bolted. We'd have a major row if anyone
> >> tried to remove it. Let's not rehash old battles. Our only option is to
> >> make it work as best we can.
> > I disagree. If people were using it we would have had many more bug
> > reports about pg_ctl not working.
> >
>
> No, that's an indication people aren't using pg_ctl, not that they
> aren't using separate config dirs.
So, you are saying that people who want config-only directories are just
not people who normally use pg_ctl, because if they were, they would
have reported the bug? That seems unlikely. I will admit the Gentoo
case is exactly that.
So we just document that config-only directories don't work for pg_ctl
and pg_upgrade?
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +