On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 09:00:25PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 23.01.2013 20:56, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 06:03:28PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote: > >>anyway, +1 for making this as default option. Going that path, would > >>we be breaking backward compatibility? There might be scripts, (being > >>already used), which depend upon the current behaviour. > > > >FYI, I have a pg_upgrade patch that relies on the old throw-an-error > >behavior. Will there be a way to still throw an error if we make > >idempotent the default? > > Could you check the status with "pg_ctl status" first, and throw an > error if it's not what you expected?
Well, this could still create a period of time where someone else starts the server between my status and my starting it. Do we really want that? And what if I want to start it with my special -o parameters, and I then can't tell if it was already running or it is using my parameters. I think an idempotent default is going to cause problems. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
