Re: Linux start script updates

On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
>>> > Exactly.  With Fedora respecting the standard in this regard,
>>> > I'm convinced we should, too.  In reviewing things based on
>>> > Peter's question, I did start to have doubts about *not*
>>> > special-casing "status" -- it has its own set of values and 5
>>> > is not assigned, so using it seems wrong.  It seems like it
>>> > should be 3 ("program is not running").  Agreed?
>>>
>>> Probably.  I think that in practice most scripts are not very
>>> tense about this --- as long as the exit code is 0 or not-0 per
>>> spec, which not-0 value is reported is not so exciting to most
>>> people.
>>
>> So, do the startup scripts as they exist in CVS need any
>> adjustment?
>
> It would be trivial to make it a tiny bit more correct, but it's
> probably not worth it.  Almost all init scripts I've seen don't
> bother to make this more correct, and some in the community seem to
> prefer brevity in this script over correctness -- we got a complaint
> about having a few characters in there to take it this far.  I'm
> inclined to say it's good enough.
>
> If we want a more compliant Linux script, the community preference
> seems to be that we do most of that work in pg_ctl, for which we now
> have a TODO or two.

AFAIR Peter is the only one who has complained about the script being
longer, and I'm really not sure why that's a big deal.

...Robert