Dave Page wrote:<br /><br /> *snip*<br /><blockquote
cite="mid:FED2B709E3270E4B903EB0175A49BCB1047390@dogbert.vale-housing.co.uk"type="cite"><blockquote
type="cite"><blockquotetype="cite"><pre wrap="">In keeping with some of the more modern daemons (xinetd,etc) you might
wantto consider something like /etc/pgsql.d/ as a directory name. Where as most folders with a .d contain a set of
filesor a <br />referenced by the main config file in /etc. This is on a RedHat system, but I <br />think the logic
applieswell if you are flexible the location of the base system config directory. (/usr/local/etc vs /etc, etc.)<br
/></pre></blockquote><prewrap="">I often wondered, if it is directory, why do they need the <br />'.d' in the name?
Whatpossible purpose could it have except <br />to look ugly? :-)<br /></pre></blockquote><pre wrap=""><br />Isn't
thisa RedHat thing anyway? Precisely why I use Slackware...</pre></blockquote> Perhaps... I just thought I'd mention it
asan observation. Regardless, being able to locate the config outside of the database directory is a Good Thing (tm).
I'mreally 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...<br /><blockquote>@sysconfdir@ = /etc ...<br />
postgresql.confin @sysconfdir@ <br /> support files in @sysconfdir@/pgsql or someother place specified in
postgresql.conf<br/><br /></blockquote>