Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> I'm not a particular fan of the current initdb output and it could use a
> general revision IMO. If you want to look into that, please do. But
> for your particular proposed addition, let's put it somewhere it makes
> sense either in the current scheme or a future scheme when that is done.
TBH, I think we should reject the current proposal outright.
The target directory's name already appears twice in initdb's output;
we do not need a third time. And as for the version, if you want that
you can get it from "initdb --version".
I agree that there could be scope for rethinking initdb's output
altogether. It's fast enough nowadays that the former need for
progress reporting could probably be dropped. Maybe we could
go over to something that's more nearly intended to be a
machine-readable summary of the configuration, like
Data directory: ...
Owning user ID: ...
Locale: ...
Default server encoding: ...
etc etc
Even if you like the current output for interactive usage,
perhaps something like this could be selected by a switch for
non-interactive usage (or just repurpose --no-instructions).
regards, tom lane
