From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Parsing of pg_hba.conf and authentication inconsistencies |
Date: | 2008-08-02 19:13:24 |
Message-ID: | 4894B1D4.8040509@commandprompt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Doesn't it seem reasonable that it should be pg_ctl? You should never
>> run postgres directly unless it is for DR.
>
> What on earth is DR?
Disaster Recovery.
>
> The problem with pg_ctl is that it's indirectly calling postgres, and it
> doesn't have a lot of a way to know what happened after calling it;
> consider the mess we have with pg_ctl -w.
>
True enough but perhaps that is a problem in itself. IMO, we should be
encouraging people to never touch the postgres binary. If that means
pg_ctl becomes a lot smarter, then we have to consider that as well.
Comparatively if I do a apachectl configtest it tells me if it is
correct. Now I assume it is actually calling httpd (I haven't checked)
but the point is, I am not calling httpd.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hans-Jürgen Schönig | 2008-08-02 19:30:08 | Re: Mini improvement: statement_cost_limit |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-08-02 19:01:24 | Re: Parsing of pg_hba.conf and authentication inconsistencies |