Re: [patch] pg_ctl init extension

Peter Eisentraut wrote:

> The patch is pretty straightforward,
> but does anyone else actually want this? Comments?

I agree that the initdb name seems odd next to the other executable
names, but the functionality seems a little out of place to me in
pg_ctl. The other options all correspond (more or less) to LSB init
script actions (and we've been talking about the desirability of
making that a closer fit); while this is something which would *not
be appropriate* in an init script. We could filter this option out
in the script, but it seemed like you wanted to keep the script as
short and simple as possible....

-Kevin