| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_ctl idempotent option |
| Date: | 2013-01-30 21:35:11 |
| Message-ID: | 20130130213511.GA12299@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 04:07:45PM +1100, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> >>> I don't think I like --force because it isn't clear if we are forcing
> >>> the start to have done something, or forcing the server to be running.
> >
> > Do we need this idempotent feature for "stop" too?
>
> Yes, of course.
If idempotent only affects -w (we don't wait for the return code without
-w), can we make -W to be idempotent?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jan Urbański | 2013-01-30 21:55:04 | Re: plpgsql versus SPI plan abstraction |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2013-01-30 21:29:47 | Re: plpgsql versus SPI plan abstraction |