From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_ctl idempotent item removed |
Date: | 2013-05-03 18:42:05 |
Message-ID: | CAMkU=1xNWNajpiXbPQUyDH5gkz===vUT8HB=RSPF8bgT7QZTmg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> I have removed both pg_ctl idempotent-commit items from the TODO list:
>
> <listitem>
> <para>
> Allow pg_ctl --idempotent to a 'success' return code if the
> requested
> start/stop action fails, but the cluster is already in the
> requested
> state (Peter Eisentraut)
> </para>
> </listitem>
>
> <listitem>
> <para>
> Change pg_ctl to return an error code if start fails because the
> server is already running (Peter Eisentraut)
> </para>
> </listitem>
>
> My question is do we really want the second item reverted?
>
Are those parts easily severable? They don't appear to be to me.
I think that if we had time to sort out the issue before beta, we could
just as easily sort out both issues and so not revert either one of them.
Also, changing the long-standing behavior and not providing an option to
neutralize that change for people who depended on it doesn't seem like a
good idea to me.
Cheers,
Jeff
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-05-03 18:43:09 | Re: Commit subject line |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-05-03 18:34:54 | Re: matview niceties: pick any two of these three |