On Friday, July 26, 2013 6:18 PM Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> The main contention point I see is where conf.d lives;
>> the two options are in $PGDATA or together with postgresql.conf. Tom
>> and Robert, above, say it should be in $PGDATA; but this goes against
>> Debian packaging and the Linux FHS (or whatever that thing is called).
> Ordinarily, if postgresql.conf is not in $PGDATA, it will be somewhere
> that the postmaster does not (and should not) have write permissions
> for. I have no objection to inventiny a conf.d subdirectory, I just say
> that it must be under $PGDATA. The argument that this is against FHS
> is utter nonsense, because anything we write there is not static
> configuration, it's just data.
> Come to think of it, maybe part of the reason we're having such a hard
> time getting to consensus is that people are conflating the "snippet"
> part with the "writable" part? I mean, if you are thinking you want
> system-management tools to be able to drop in configuration fragments as
> separate files, there's a case to be made for a conf.d subdirectory that
> lives somewhere that the postmaster can't necessarily write. We just
> mustn't confuse that with support for ALTER SYSTEM SET. I strongly
> believe that ALTER SYSTEM SET must not be designed to write anywhere
> outside $PGDATA.
I think if we can design conf.d separately for config files of management tools, then
it is better to have postgresql.auto.conf to be in $PGDATA rather than in
$PGDATA/conf.d
Kindly let me know if you feel otherwise, else I will update and send patch
tomorrow.
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.