Re: [PATCH] Bug fix in initdb output

>
> FWIW, I don't think that it is a good idea to come back to this
> decision for *nix platforms, so I would let it as-is, and use relative
> paths if initdb is called using a relative path.

The command to be displayed either in absolute path or relative path
depends on the way the user is calling initdb. I agree with the above
comment to keep this behaviour as-is, that is if the initdb is called using
relative path, then it displays relative path otherwise absolute path.

> However, if you can write something that
> makes the path printed compatible for a WIN32 terminal while keeping
> the behavior consistent with other platforms, people would have no
> objections to that.

I feel the patch attached above handles this scenario.

Thanks and Regards,
Nitin Jadhav

On Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 6:53 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 01:28:57AM +0100, Juan José Santamaría Flecha
> wrote:
> > For me it is a +1 for the change to absolute. Let's see if more people
> want
> > to weigh in on the matter.
>
> FWIW, I don't think that it is a good idea to come back to this
> decision for *nix platforms, so I would let it as-is, and use relative
> paths if initdb is called using a relative path.
>
> The number of people using a relative path for Windows initialization
> sounds rather limited to me. However, if you can write something that
> makes the path printed compatible for a WIN32 terminal while keeping
> the behavior consistent with other platforms, people would have no
> objections to that.
> --
> Michael
>