Re: Bug with pg_ctl -w/wait and config-only directories

Andrew Dunstan 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.

OK, please propose and "avoid" plan? I can't come up with one that makes
any sense.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +