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 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 not assigned, so using it seems wrong. It seems like it >>> > should be 3 ("program is not running"). Agreed? >>> >>> Probably. I think that in practice most scripts are not very >>> tense about this --- as long as the exit code is 0 or not-0 per >>> spec, which not-0 value is reported is not so exciting to most >>> people. >> >> So, do the startup scripts as they exist in CVS need any >> adjustment? > > It would be trivial to make it a tiny bit more correct, but it's > probably not worth it. Almost all init scripts I've seen don't > bother to make this more correct, and some in the community seem to > prefer brevity in this script over correctness -- we got a complaint > about having a few characters in there to take it this far. I'm > inclined to say it's good enough. > > If we want a more compliant Linux script, the community preference > seems to be that we do most of that work in pg_ctl, for which we now > have a TODO or two.
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. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers