On 05-05-2015 16:36, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > 1. I like copying and pasting the "postgres" line during development. > That's not a reason to keep it, necessarily. > I prefer pg_ctl because of symmetry (start, stop, restart, reload and even init).
> 2. If you're saying, most people shouldn't run postgres directly, then > most people also shouldn't run initdb directly. This message will > mainly be seen either by developers or testers or tutorial users or > do-it-yourselfers. In which case knowing the functionality of the > postgres program is valid. > I'm not saying to discourage postgres binary use. It has its merit and utility. However, the information after initdb is for general users and not developers/testers (because the latter know how to start the service) -- that's my impression. We have an utility that concentrate all of the necessary modes (even init) to operate postgres service. Why not advocate it for general users? pg_ctl sounds more natural for postgres administration. How do you explain that you have to start the service with 'postgres' but stop it with 'pg_ctl' ou even 'kill'? > 3. It's not clear that pg_ctl is necessarily the best way to start the > server. With things like systemd, launchd, supervisord that like to > manage the daemons directly, using postgres directly might be the > preferable choice. > Agree. However, I'm saying that _general users_ (those that don't use OS init interface) tend to prefer 'pg_ctl' to 'postgres'. -- Euler Taveira Timbira - http://www.timbira.com.br/ PostgreSQL: Consultoria, Desenvolvimento, Suporte 24x7 e Treinamento -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers