> > >OK, but _I_ don't run bash. So someone else is now maintaining this
> > >file? Why didn't we keep both forms in the file, with one commented out?
> > >What are we trying to accomplish here??
> > About bash, it's the usual shell for regular users. I guess the start/stop
> > script was meant for users who don't know/cannot write their own.
> Perhaps we should write scripts for just plain old 'sh'. This is available
> everywhere (sort of even on SCO).
> If not that, bash might be a better choice than tcsh as it is perhaps more
> common (we even run it on all our Solaris machines where I work).
If you want portability, then plain old Bourne shell should probably be
the shell of choice. Most implementations's on /bin/sh behave the same,
and such scripts will run just fine under bash or ksh.
The same is not true in the csh world...different implementations of
/bin/csh tend to have different bugs (eg some of them have the sense of
|| and && swapped). Tcsh is (I believe) fairly bug free...but much less
widely available than /bin/sh...
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Ralf Berger||Date: 1998-04-28 09:30:50|
|Subject: Re: [QUESTIONS] Postgres still dying on insert|
|Previous:||From: Hannu Krosing||Date: 1998-04-28 07:43:03|
|Subject: Re: New Driver and Unique Indexes|