"Kevin Grittner" <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> writes: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> The patch is pretty straightforward, >> but does anyone else actually want this? Comments? > I agree that the initdb name seems odd next to the other executable > names, but the functionality seems a little out of place to me in > pg_ctl. The other options all correspond (more or less) to LSB init > script actions (and we've been talking about the desirability of > making that a closer fit); while this is something which would *not > be appropriate* in an init script.
Well, it's not appropriate or safe as a default action, but there already is a nonstandard "service postgresql init" action in at least the PGDG and Red Hat init scripts. In fact, I believe that Zdenek's entire rationale for this is predicated on the assumption that he can eventually make initdb's disappearance transparent, if he can get people used to using such a thing instead of initdb'ing by hand. 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