Re: Prevent printing "next step instructions" in initdb and pg_upgrade

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Prevent printing "next step instructions" in initdb and pg_upgrade
Date: 2020-11-25 08:29:55
Message-ID: 71813699-2992-fbde-1787-27f216f1ef35@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2020-11-24 13:32, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> I think it boils down to that today the output from initdb is entirely
> geared towards people running initdb directly and starting their
> server manually, and very few people outside the actual PostgreSQL
> developers ever do that. But there are still a lot of people who run
> initdb through their wrapper manually (for redhat you have to do that,
> for debian you only have to do it if you're creating a secondary
> cluster but that still a pretty common operation).

Perhaps it's worth asking whom the advice applies to then. You suggest
it's mostly developers. I for one am still grumpy that in 9.5 we
removed the variant of the hint that suggested "postgres -D ..." instead
of pg_ctl. I used to copy and paste that a lot. The argument back then
was that the hint should target end users, not developers. I doubt that
under the current circumstances, running pg_ctl start from the console
is really appropriate advice for a majority of users. (For one thing,
systemd will kill it when you log out.) I don't know what better advice
would be, though. Maybe we need to add some kind of text adventure game
into initdb.

--
Peter Eisentraut
2ndQuadrant, an EDB company
https://www.2ndquadrant.com/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Luc Vlaming 2020-11-25 08:41:02 Re: Multi Inserts in CREATE TABLE AS - revived patch
Previous Message Kyotaro Horiguchi 2020-11-25 08:14:06 Re: Strange behavior with polygon and NaN