Re: pg_ctl idempotent option

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_ctl idempotent option
Date: 2013-01-28 15:40:08
Message-ID: CA+U5nM+o6O2sbw5zjBQrq2ZHBkdxs3HatQTpjJZQZSP20V7dug@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 14 January 2013 15:29, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>> > Here is a patch to add an option -I/--idempotent to pg_ctl, the result
>> > of which is that pg_ctl doesn't error on start or stop if the server is
>> > already running or already stopped.
>>
>> Idempotent is a ten-dollar word. Can we find something that average
>> people wouldn't need to consult a dictionary to understand?
>
> --no-error perhaps?

I think --force would be the accepted way to ensure something happens
as specified

Mind you, I'm not sure I see the value in throwing an error if the
server is in the desired state already. Who actually wants that
behaviour? Can't we just change the behaviour? Existing scripts would
still work, since we are simply skipping an error.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2013-01-28 15:44:54 Re: Re: proposal: a width specification for s specifier (format function), fix behave when positional and ordered placeholders are used
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2013-01-28 15:38:48 Re: plpgsql_check_function - rebase for 9.3