| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Voting: "pg_ctl init" versus "initdb" |
| Date: | 2009-11-15 22:19:25 |
| Message-ID: | 24625.1258323565@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Sat, 2009-11-14 at 15:07 +0100, Zdenek Kotala wrote:
>> extend pg_ctl functionality and add "init" command which do same thing
>> like initdb
> If we did add an extra option then the option would be "initdb" not
> "init". It would take us all years to remove all evidence of the phrase
> "initdb" from the mailing lists and our minds.
"init" is already embedded in various packagers' initscripts. And
I thought the entire point of this proposal was that we could expunge
knowledge of initdb from users' minds. (I'm dubious of that too,
but varying from what's already established at the script level will
not help.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2009-11-15 22:21:19 | Re: Config help |
| Previous Message | undisclosed user | 2009-11-15 21:45:50 | Re: Experience with many schemas vs many databases |