Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > On 10/03/2011 04:41 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > On m?n, 2011-10-03 at 15:09 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> Why were people not using pg_ctl? Because of the limitations which > >> were fixed in PG 9.1? As Dave already said, windows already has to > >> use pg_ctl. > > Historically, pg_ctl has had a lot of limitations. Just off the top of > > my head, nonstandard ports used to break it, nonstandard socket > > directories used to break it, nonstandard authentication setups used to > > break it, the waiting business was unreliable, the stop modes were weird > > and not flexible enough, the behavior in error cases does not conform to > > LSB init script conventions, there were some race conditions that I > > don't recall the details of right now. And you had to keep a list of > > exactly which of these bugs were addressed in which version. > > > I'm not sure ancient history helps us much here. Many of these went > away long ago.
Agreed. You could argue that pg_ctl 9.1 is much better than anything anyone would be able to craft in a script. -- 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
