Re: more on initdb

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Postgresql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: more on initdb
Date: 2003-10-06 16:05:29
Message-ID: 27721.1065456329@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> I guess it ain't broke so it doesn't need
> to be fixed, so I'm not sure if it would be worth it.

That's about my feeling. There's nothing wrong with the initdb process,
other than its dependency on shell scripting, and so no visible gain to
be had by reimplementing it further than replacing the shell script.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-10-06 16:12:01 Re: pg_restore -d doesn't display output
Previous Message Harald Fuchs 2003-10-06 15:08:36 Re: count(*) slow on large tables