On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 11:58 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Right. It seems that, in addition to the above, there also remains > some disagreement about: > > (1) how much checking the script should do to provide error messages > and exit codes which target the specific problems versus generic "I'm > broken" messages for problems which prevent it from getting to the > point of being able to run pg_ctl, > > (2) whether the log functions required by the standard should be > used, or whether we should assume that output to stdout and/or stderr > (which the standard says may be silently discarded without showing > anywhere) should be used instead, > > (3) whether we should provide comments of the general intent of > sections of code when the implementing code is providing functionality > required by the standard, versus assuming that the reader can match > the code portions to the relevant sections of the standard without > supporting comments.
I'm not so worried about these points. They can always be adjusted later. The point about how to involve pg_ctl is more critical. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
