| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Leon Mergen <leon(at)solatis(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] Unable to get postgres running after long time no vacuum |
| Date: | 2007-07-09 00:59:40 |
| Message-ID: | 21354.1183942780@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Sure, but those who do know how to SIGQUIT might reach for that before
>> they reach for control-D. There's hardly anyone out there who could
>> be called an experienced user of the standalone mode, I think, and so
>> we shouldn't assume that users always know control-D is the way out.
> I agree completely, but is that an argument _against_ a "quit" command?
No, it's orthogonal to whether we want a "quit" command. (My opinion is
not, because what the heck will we do with it in multiuser mode? And
there is no good way to shoehorn it into just the single-user mode, it'd
have to be a grammar entry.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-07-09 01:10:55 | Re: [GENERAL] Unable to get postgres running after long time no vacuum |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-07-09 00:38:35 | Re: [GENERAL] Unable to get postgres running after long time no vacuum |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-07-09 01:10:55 | Re: [GENERAL] Unable to get postgres running after long time no vacuum |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-07-09 00:38:35 | Re: [GENERAL] Unable to get postgres running after long time no vacuum |