On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 20:39, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>
> 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.
I think we "can live" with pg_ctl not working - since that problem has
already been solved by these people - at least partially.
Getting pg_upgrade to work would be a *lot* more important.
I'm not sure how big the overlap is - would it be easier if you moved
the required functionality into pg_upgrade itself, as you mentioned at
some point? As in, would it be easier to fix the config-only directory
case for the limited subset of functionality that pg_upgrade needs?
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/