Re: Prevent printing "next step instructions" in initdb and pg_upgrade

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Prevent printing "next step instructions" in initdb and pg_upgrade
Date: 2020-10-27 10:53:08
Message-ID: 20201027105308.GI4951@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 11:35:25AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2020-10-06 12:26, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > I went with the name --no-instructions to have the same name for both
> > initdb and pg_upgrade. The downside is that "no-instructions" also
> > causes the scripts not to be written in pg_upgrade, which arguably is a
> > different thing. We could go with "--no-instructions" and
> > "--no-scripts", but that would leave the parameters different. I also
> > considered "--no-next-step", but that one didn't quite have the right
> > ring to me. I'm happy for other suggestions on the parameter names.
>
> What scripts are left after we remove the analyze script, as discussed in a
> different thread?

There is still delete_old_cluster.sh.

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

The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2020-10-27 11:00:33 Re: [patch] ENUM errdetail should mention bytes, not chars
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2020-10-27 10:46:43 Re: deferred primary key and logical replication