| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Ryan Murphy <ryanfmurphy(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Clarifying "server starting" messaging in pg_ctl start without --wait |
| Date: | 2016-12-20 20:55:10 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwYEc7G0R2LBR5QSii2QLhCmLM44gd5p+Ba-m7Ai4uoxgw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > Maybe the fix is to make --wait the default?
>
> I was wondering about that too ... does anyone remember the rationale
> for the current behavior? But the message for the non-wait case seems
> like it could stand to be improved independently of that.
>
Not totally independent.
If the default is changed to --wait then the message can be written
assuming the user understands what "--no-wait" does; but if the default is
left "--no-wait" then cluing the user into the asynchronous behavior and
telling them how to get the more expected synchronous behavior would be
helpful.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-12-20 21:30:49 | Re: pg_authid.rolpassword format (was Re: Password identifiers, protocol aging and SCRAM protocol) |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-12-20 20:52:25 | Re: Clarifying "server starting" messaging in pg_ctl start without --wait |