Re: [HACKERS] Linux start script updates

2010-03-04 Thread Kevin Grittner
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes: Exactly. With Fedora respecting the standard in this regard, I'm convinced we should, too. In reviewing things based on Peter's question, I did start to have doubts about *not*

Re: [HACKERS] Linux start script updates

2010-03-04 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote: Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes: Exactly.  With Fedora respecting the standard in this regard, I'm convinced we should, too.  In

Re: [HACKERS] Linux start script updates

2010-03-04 Thread Kevin Grittner
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: AFAIR Peter is the only one who has complained about the script being longer, and I'm really not sure why that's a big deal. I'll take that under advisement for later. I'm not inclined to think there's anything here worth trying to squeeze into 9.0,

Re: [HACKERS] Linux start script updates

2010-03-04 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote: Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: AFAIR Peter is the only one who has complained about the script being longer, and I'm really not sure why that's a big deal. I'll take that under advisement for later.  

Re: [HACKERS] Linux start script updates

2010-03-03 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes: Exactly. With Fedora respecting the standard in this regard, I'm convinced we should, too. In reviewing things based on Peter's question, I did start to have doubts about *not* special-casing status -- it has its own set

Re: [HACKERS] Linux start script updates

2010-03-01 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On tor, 2009-08-20 at 10:31 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: (2) It doesn't exit with zero for a missing executable unless the request is stop. It uses 5, which means program is not installed. Using 5 is correct, but special-casing stop is kind of useless. Every other init script I have ever

Re: [HACKERS] Linux start script updates

2010-03-01 Thread Kevin Grittner
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote: On tor, 2009-08-20 at 10:31 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: (2) It doesn't exit with zero for a missing executable unless the request is stop. It uses 5, which means program is not installed. Using 5 is correct, but special-casing stop is kind of

Re: [HACKERS] Linux start script updates

2010-03-01 Thread Tom Lane
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes: I can't see a clear case either way. I know I *have* seen scripts which took the trouble to special-case it, but I just poked around and found that it seems much less common than unconditionally using exit 5. Does anyone know of an

Re: [HACKERS] Linux start script updates

2010-03-01 Thread Kevin Grittner
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote: I think though that the answer to Peter's question is that stop has to be special cased to some extent, because it is not supposed to be an error to stop a service that's not running. If it's not even installed, then a fortiori it's not running, so the

Re: [HACKERS] Linux start script updates

2010-03-01 Thread Tom Lane
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes: Exactly. With Fedora respecting the standard in this regard, I'm convinced we should, too. In reviewing things based on Peter's question, I did start to have doubts about *not* special-casing status -- it has its own set of values and 5 is

Re: [HACKERS] Linux start script updates

2010-02-23 Thread Bruce Momjian
Kevin Grittner wrote: Due to a thread about the neglect of the sample start scripts I took a look at the current Linux file. There's certainly room for several improvements, but some of them might require discussion. Attached are a couple small changes which seem to me to be pretty tame.