From: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_ctl idempotent option |
Date: | 2013-01-14 15:48:57 |
Message-ID: | CAA-aLv5Z=G+zWxaPwJ5X3=6xt0K_HSseA22RpZ3X_cgBBb8=HQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 14 January 2013 15:29, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > > Here is a patch to add an option -I/--idempotent to pg_ctl, the result
> > > of which is that pg_ctl doesn't error on start or stop if the server is
> > > already running or already stopped.
> >
> > Idempotent is a ten-dollar word. Can we find something that average
> > people wouldn't need to consult a dictionary to understand?
>
> --no-error perhaps?
>
Couldn't that be misconstrued as to suppress any type of error?
I personally can't think of something terse enough to put into a
descriptive long-word option that would adequately describe the change in
behaviour it provides.
--suppress-error-when-target-status-already-present ... bit too wordy. ;)
--
Thom
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2013-01-14 16:01:06 | Re: [PATCH] COPY .. COMPRESSED |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-01-14 15:47:12 | Re: pg_ctl idempotent option |