From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Prevent printing "next step instructions" in initdb and pg_upgrade |
Date: | 2020-10-06 12:56:51 |
Message-ID: | CABUevEzwB7G8pBcnn-SKFoVQtbppDeuPvGesSLNabFC=zwxEyQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 1:49 PM Ian Lawrence Barwick <barwick(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> 2020年10月6日(火) 19:26 Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>:
> >
> > The attached patch adds a switch --no-instructions to initdb and
> pg_upgrade, which prevents them from printing instructions about how to
> start the cluster (initdb) or how to analyze and delete clusters
> (pg_upgrade).
> >
> > The use case for this is for example the debian or redhat package
> wrappers. When these commands are run under those wrappers the printed
> instructions are *wrong*. It's better in that case to exclude them, and let
> the wrapper be responsible for printing the correct instructions.
> >
> > I went with the name --no-instructions to have the same name for both
> initdb and pg_upgrade. The downside is that "no-instructions" also causes
> the scripts not to be written in pg_upgrade, which arguably is a different
> thing. We could go with "--no-instructions" and "--no-scripts", but that
> would leave the parameters different. I also considered "--no-next-step",
> but that one didn't quite have the right ring to me. I'm happy for other
> suggestions on the parameter names.
>
> As the switches are doing slightly different things (just omitting verbiage
> versus omitting verbiage *and* not generating some script files) it
> seems reasonable
> not to try and shoehorn them into a using a unified but ambiguous name
> name. Particularly as they're intended to be used in scripts themselves, so
> it's not like it's important to create something that users can remember
> easily for frequent use.
>
True.
Alternatively, rather than describing what is not being done, the switch
> could be called "--script-mode" or similar with a description along the
> lines of "produces output suitable for execution by packaging scripts"
> or something, and detail what's being omitted (or done differently)
> in the documentation page.
>
Hmm, I'm less sure about that one. One could argue that this should then
also affect other things, like password prompting, to fulfill it's name.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: https://www.hagander.net/ <http://www.hagander.net/>
Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/ <http://www.redpill-linpro.com/>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ian Lawrence Barwick | 2020-10-06 12:58:51 | [doc] clarify behaviour of pg_dump's -t/--table option with non-tables |
Previous Message | Ian Lawrence Barwick | 2020-10-06 12:15:19 | Re: [doc] remove reference to pg_dump pre-8.1 switch behaviour |