<br /><br /> Tom Lane wrote:<br /><blockquote cite="mid13146.1045148622@sss.pgh.pa.us" type="cite"><pre wrap="">mlw <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"href="mailto:pgsql@mohawksoft.com"><pgsql@mohawksoft.com></a> writes:
</pre><blockquotetype="cite"><pre wrap="">Here is the test, configure a server, with sendmail, named, apache, and
PostgreSQL. Tell me which of these systems doesn't configure right. </pre></blockquote><pre wrap="">
AFAIK, only one of those four is designed to support multiple instances
running on a single machine. This is not unrelated.
</pre></blockquote> While I will agree with you on sendmail and named, Apache is often run more than once with
differentoptions.<br /> Furthermore, I hate to keep bringing it up, Oracle does use the configuration file
methodology.<br/><br /> Tom, I just don't understand why this is being resisted so vigorously. What is wrong with
startingPostgreSQL as:<br /><br /> postmaster -C /etc/postgresql.conf<br /><br /> UNIX admins would love to have this
asa methodology, I don't think you can deny this, can you? I, as a long term PG user, really really want this, because
inthe long run, it makes PostgreSQL easier to administer.<br /><br /> If a patch allows PG to function as it does, but
alsoallows a configuration file methodology, why not?<br />