| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Prevent printing "next step instructions" in initdb and pg_upgrade |
| Date: | 2020-10-27 10:35:25 |
| Message-ID: | df2b2919-6e85-41ca-6570-3ae8ff86d889@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-10-06 12:26, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> 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.
What scripts are left after we remove the analyze script, as discussed
in a different thread?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2020-10-27 10:42:28 | Re: "unix_socket_directories" should be GUC_LIST_INPUT? |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2020-10-27 10:33:17 | Re: pg_upgrade analyze script |