Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> 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.
That's a great idea, but I don't think we should weigh down this idea of config checking with that responsability. We could discuss solutions to this problem, but I think it's going to be quite a lot harder than you seem to think. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
