> > 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 <mich...@paquier.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 >
