On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> writes: >> On 1/14/13 10:22 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Also it appears to me that the hunk at lines 812ff is changing the >>> default behavior, which is not what the patch is advertised to do. > >> True, I had forgotten to mention that. > >> Since it's already the behavior for start, another option would be to >> just make it the default for stop as well and forget about the extra >> options. I'm not sure whether there is a big use case for getting an >> error code on stop if the server is already stopped. > > Actually, I seem to recall having had to hack Red Hat's initscript > because the LSB standard requires that stopping a not-running server > *not* be an error. So +1 for forgetting about the option entirely > and just making it idempotent all the time.
+1 > > regards, tom lane > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
