On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>> On tor, 2009-09-17 at 11:59 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>>> > Well, in such cases it may be useful to add an option such as
>>> > --oknodo to select the idempotent behavior.
>>> I found that confusing (as did Robert); how about --lsm-conforming?
>> I'm not so sure that I would label it as LSB, because that is too broad,
>> and not very descriptive.
>> I think this option should only control whether start and stop are
>> idempotent. Other LSB issues such as exit codes ought to become the
>> default, or possibly a different option if necessary.
> Maybe we should just call it --idempotent.
> Or, they could be additional actions, like ensure-start/ensure-stop.
It seems like there is some support for what this patch is trying to
do, but much disagreement about the details of how to get there.
Where do we go from here?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2009-09-21 02:56:53|
|Subject: Re: TODO item: Allow more complex user/database default GUC settings|
|Previous:||From: Emmanuel Cecchet||Date: 2009-09-21 02:24:28|
|Subject: Re: generic copy options|