> Making --wait the default may or may not be sensible -- I'm not sure
> -- but removing --no-wait is clearly a bad idea, and we shouldn't do
> it. The fact that the problems created by removing it might be
> solvable doesn't mean that it's a good idea to create them in the
> first place.
>
>
>
I
On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 7:25 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 12/23/16 6:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Michael Paquier writes:
>>> Is there still a use case for --no-wait in the real world?
>>
>> Sure. Most system startup scripts aren't going to want to
On 12/23/16 6:10 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Michael Paquier writes:
Is there still a use case for --no-wait in the real world?
Sure. Most system startup scripts aren't going to want to wait.
If we take it out those people will go back to starting the postmaster
by hand.
Michael Paquier writes:
> Is there still a use case for --no-wait in the real world?
Sure. Most system startup scripts aren't going to want to wait.
If we take it out those people will go back to starting the postmaster
by hand.
regards, tom
On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 10:47 PM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> On 12/20/16 3:43 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 12/20/16 3:31 PM, Ryan Murphy wrote:
>>> I'm concerned some new users may not understand this behavior of pg_ctl,
>>> so I wanted to suggest that we add
On 12/20/16 3:43 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 12/20/16 3:31 PM, Ryan Murphy wrote:
>> I'm concerned some new users may not understand this behavior of pg_ctl,
>> so I wanted to suggest that we add some additional messaging after
>> "server starting" - something like:
>>
>> $ pg_ctl -D datadir
On 12/20/16 3:49 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> Maybe the fix is to make --wait the default?
> I was wondering about that too ... does anyone remember the rationale
> for the current behavior?
Probably because that didn't work reliably before
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > Maybe the fix is to make --wait the default?
>
> I was wondering about that too ... does anyone remember the rationale
> for the current behavior? But the
Tom Lane wrote:
> Ryan Murphy writes:
> > I'm concerned some new users may not understand this behavior of pg_ctl, so
> > I wanted to suggest that we add some additional messaging after "server
> > starting" - something like:
>
> > $ pg_ctl -D datadir -l logfile start
> >
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> Maybe the fix is to make --wait the default?
I was wondering about that too ... does anyone remember the rationale
for the current behavior? But the message for the non-wait case seems
like it could stand to be improved independently
Ryan Murphy writes:
> I'm concerned some new users may not understand this behavior of pg_ctl, so
> I wanted to suggest that we add some additional messaging after "server
> starting" - something like:
> $ pg_ctl -D datadir -l logfile start
> server starting
> (to wait for
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 03:43:11PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 12/20/16 3:31 PM, Ryan Murphy wrote:
> > I'm concerned some new users may not understand this behavior of pg_ctl,
> > so I wanted to suggest that we add some additional messaging after
> > "server starting" - something like:
>
On 12/20/16 3:31 PM, Ryan Murphy wrote:
> I'm concerned some new users may not understand this behavior of pg_ctl,
> so I wanted to suggest that we add some additional messaging after
> "server starting" - something like:
>
> $ pg_ctl -D datadir -l logfile start
> server starting
> (to wait for
Hi Postgres Devs,
I had a suggestion regarding the output pg_ctl gives when you use it to
start the postgres server. At first I was going to write a patch, but then
I decided to just ask you guys first to see what you think.
I had an issue earlier where I was trying to upgrade my postgres
14 matches
Mail list logo