| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, James William Pye <james(dot)pye(at)icrossing(dot)com>, Thomas Hallgren <thomas(at)tada(dot)se>, Devrim GUNDUZ <devrim(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, James William Pye <pgsql(at)jwp(dot)name> |
| Subject: | Re: Adding a --quiet option to initdb |
| Date: | 2006-01-26 23:35:33 |
| Message-ID: | 43D95CC5.90706@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 11:36:15AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
>
>>James William Pye wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Why should initdb give it [processing
>>>information] to the user if the user didn't request it in the first
>>>place?
>>>
>>>
>>Because it shows important information that we want the user to see.
>>
>>
>
>Plus it can be a fairly long-running process on slower machines, so
>providing feedback to the user is good.
>
>
Moreover, we should not change behaviour just on aesthetic grounds. For
example, if initdb were suddenly to become quiet by default, we would
need to add some version-specific processing to the buildfarm.
As for a --quiet option, I just don't see why it is needed when
>/dev/null works perfectly well.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2006-01-26 23:36:14 | Re: Cleaning up the INET/CIDR mess |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-01-26 23:00:08 | Re: Adding a --quiet option to initdb |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-01-26 23:48:26 | Re: BUG #2195: log_min_messages crash server when in DEBUG3 to |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-01-26 23:00:08 | Re: Adding a --quiet option to initdb |