On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 09:29:35PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 03:40:08PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On 14 January 2013 15:29, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > > Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> writes:
> > >> > Here is a patch to add an option -I/--idempotent to pg_ctl, the result
> > >> > of which is that pg_ctl doesn't error on start or stop if the server is
> > >> > already running or already stopped.
> > >>
> > >> Idempotent is a ten-dollar word. Can we find something that average
> > >> people wouldn't need to consult a dictionary to understand?
> > >
> > > --no-error perhaps?
> >
> >
> > I think --force would be the accepted way to ensure something happens
> > as specified
> >
> >
> > Mind you, I'm not sure I see the value in throwing an error if the
> > server is in the desired state already. Who actually wants that
> > behaviour? Can't we just change the behaviour? Existing scripts would
> > still work, since we are simply skipping an error.
>
> pg_upgrade uses that to find out of the server was already running or if
> we started it. This is to start the server to remove the
> postmaster.pid file. Also, no one has explained how not knowing if -o
> options were used was a safe.
OK, I had some time to think about this. Basically, we have three
outcomes for pg_ctl start:
server not running and pg_ctl start success
server start failed
server already running
Can't we just assign different return values to these cases, e.g. 0, 1,
2? We already print output telling the user what happened.
I don't think I like --force because it isn't clear if we are forcing
the start to have done something, or forcing the server to be running.
--
Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
