On 10/03/2011 02:25 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 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.
As Dave has pointed out there are many more people that use it, probably
most notably Debian/Ubuntu users.
> So we just document that config-only directories don't work for pg_ctl
> and pg_upgrade?
>
I'd rather not if it can be avoided.
cheers
andrew