Tom Lane wrote:
>Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>
>
>>I guess it ain't broke so it doesn't need
>>to be fixed, so I'm not sure if it would be worth it.
>>
>>
>
>That's about my feeling. There's nothing wrong with the initdb process,
>other than its dependency on shell scripting, and so no visible gain to
>be had by reimplementing it further than replacing the shell script.
>
>
>
OK, I'm happy enough with that - just throwing out ideas.
cheers
andrew