Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I guess we won't need two separate files global.bki and template1.bki
anymore. That would simplify some things, but maybe it's still a
stilistic thing.
It's probably not absolutely necessary to have two, but why change it?
One less *bki file
Tom Lane writes:
Accordingly, I suggest that initdb -t should be flushed entirely.
I guess we won't need two separate files global.bki and template1.bki
anymore. That would simplify some things, but maybe it's still a
stilistic thing.
--
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I guess we won't need two separate files global.bki and template1.bki
anymore. That would simplify some things, but maybe it's still a
stilistic thing.
It's probably not absolutely necessary to have two, but why change it?
Tom Lane writes:
It occurs to me that the only likely use for initdb -t is now served by
DROP DATABASE template1;
CREATE DATABASE template1 WITH TEMPLATE = template0;
ie, we have a *real* way to reconstruct a virgin template1 rather than
an initdb kluge.
I agree.
Accordingly,
Any idea if this is fixed?
Bruce Momjian writes:
Peter, comments?
It doesn't destroy all databases anymore, although I can't make any
statements about what it actually does do. I suppose it's still broken.
Richard Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems that initdb starts a
Bruce Momjian writes:
Peter, comments?
It doesn't destroy all databases anymore, although I can't make any
statements about what it actually does do. I suppose it's still broken.
Richard Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems that initdb starts a single-user backend but gives it the
Peter, comments?
Richard Poole [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It seems that initdb starts a single-user backend but gives it the "-x"
option, which makes it call BootStrapXLOG, which fails because it
expects to be called only on absolutely first-time system startup (?).
initdb sees the
