Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 11:36:15AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
James William Pye wrote:
Why should initdb give it [processing
information] to the user if the user didn't request it in the first
place?
Because it shows important information that we want
Thomas Hallgren [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is how I perceive the output from initdb:
- The output lists settings for locale, encoding and buffer usage. Why
are these specific settings be of special interest? Anyone with an
interest in them knows where to find them anyway. This
Tom Lane wrote:
I get a WARNING: enabling trust authentication for local connections.
Now this information *is* important. Unfortunately it's mixed in with
all the rest unless I use a special redirect of stdout.
To apply your own argument, why is that important? Anyone with an
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This warning was added because of security considerations AFAIR. If the
intent is to make initdb super-quiet, we still have to have security in
mind. So if you want it to not say anything by default, instead of
throwing a warning it should throw an
Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This warning was added because of security considerations AFAIR. If the
intent is to make initdb super-quiet, we still have to have security in
mind. So if you want it to not say anything by default, instead of
throwing a warning
I wrote:
While we can probably all agree that it's not very interesting to
mention every single directory that initdb creates, I find it ...
I took a quick look at the source and see that it would be trivial
to reduce the current output from
creating directory /home/postgres/v82/data ... ok
to
creating directory /home/postgres/v82/data ... ok
creating subdirectories ... ok
selecting default max_connections ... 100
...
Less is more :)
I like it.
Joshua D. Drake
regards, tom lane
---(end of
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 11:36:15AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
James William Pye wrote:
Why should initdb give it [processing
information] to the user if the user didn't request it in the first
place?
Because it shows important information that we want the user to see.
Plus it can be
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 11:36:15AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
James William Pye wrote:
Why should initdb give it [processing
information] to the user if the user didn't request it in the first
place?
Because it shows important information that we want
Hi,
Attached is a patch which adds --quiet and --q option to initdb. I
personally needed this option while writing a document and taking
screenshot :) It only shows the error and warning messages, as well as
the last lines.
I've updated the docs. Regression tests pass.
This is my first patch
Devrim GUNDUZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Attached is a patch which adds --quiet and --q option to initdb.
Why is this a good idea?
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Hi,
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 11:28 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Devrim GUNDUZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Attached is a patch which adds --quiet and --q option to initdb.
Why is this a good idea?
I was playing with 8.2 RPM init script and thought that instead of
directing the output to /dev/null, it
Devrim GUNDUZ wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 11:28 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Devrim GUNDUZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Attached is a patch which adds --quiet and --q option to initdb.
Why is this a good idea?
I was playing with 8.2 RPM init script and thought that instead of
Bruce Momjian pgman@candle.pha.pa.us writes:
Devrim GUNDUZ wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 11:28 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Devrim GUNDUZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Attached is a patch which adds --quiet and --q option to initdb.
Why is this a good idea?
I was playing with
Devrim GUNDUZ wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 11:28 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Devrim GUNDUZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Attached is a patch which adds --quiet and --q option to initdb.
Why is this a good idea?
I was playing with 8.2 RPM init script and thought that instead of
directing the
Greg Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I always wondered why the Redhat init scripts thought it was a clever idea to
redirect the output to /dev/null. It seems like a pessimal user interface
choice. Every time I have to work with a Redhat machine where Postgres isn't
starting up the first thing
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 19:23 +0100, Thomas Hallgren wrote:
Make it completely silent by
default instead and then introduce a --verbose.
+1.
I imagine initdb is usually ran interactively, so I don't think having
the extra output is a big issue considering the normal case, but I think
the If
17 matches
Mail list logo
