Re: [GENERAL] Unable to get postgres running after long time no vacuum

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Leon Mergen <leon(at)solatis(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Unable to get postgres running after long time no vacuum
Date: 2007-07-09 00:59:40
Message-ID: 21354.1183942780@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Sure, but those who do know how to SIGQUIT might reach for that before
>> they reach for control-D. There's hardly anyone out there who could
>> be called an experienced user of the standalone mode, I think, and so
>> we shouldn't assume that users always know control-D is the way out.

> I agree completely, but is that an argument _against_ a "quit" command?

No, it's orthogonal to whether we want a "quit" command. (My opinion is
not, because what the heck will we do with it in multiuser mode? And
there is no good way to shoehorn it into just the single-user mode, it'd
have to be a grammar entry.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2007-07-09 01:10:55 Re: [GENERAL] Unable to get postgres running after long time no vacuum
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2007-07-09 00:38:35 Re: [GENERAL] Unable to get postgres running after long time no vacuum

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2007-07-09 01:10:55 Re: [GENERAL] Unable to get postgres running after long time no vacuum
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2007-07-09 00:38:35 Re: [GENERAL] Unable to get postgres running after long time no vacuum