From: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | "Claudio Natoli" <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com>, <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_ctl service integration for WIN32 |
Date: | 2004-06-17 07:22:01 |
Message-ID: | E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E4AA11@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Claudio Natoli [mailto:claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com]
> Sent: 17 June 2004 02:00
> To: Dave Page; Claudio Natoli; pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: RE: [PATCHES] pg_ctl service integration for WIN32
>
>
> Dave Page writes:
> > Looks OK to me at a quick glance. One thought though, whilst I like
> > the idea of using service pause to do a SIGHUP from a convenience
> > point of view, it's not exactly the expected behaviour and
> might leave
> > the inexperienced user wondering why the server is still
> running normally.
> > I'm on the fence regarding which way to to go with that though...
>
> Likewise, I have no strong feelings either way. Apparently it
> is an accepted paradigm.
Fair enough - in which case let's keep it and document it someplace.
It'll definitely be handy for those that know about it.
> Subconsciously, I must be against it, as I failed to pass a
> flag to enable the Pause/SIGHUP operation. :-)
:-)
Regards, Dave.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-06-17 12:41:14 | Re: Some index entries |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2004-06-17 03:44:25 | Some index entries |