Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On m?n, 2011-10-03 at 11:27 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Frankly, I am confused how this breakage has gone unreported for so > > long. > > Well, nobody is required to use pg_ctl, and for the longest time, it was > pg_ctl that was considered to be broken (for various other reasons) and > avoided in packaged init scripts.
Yes, but I am now seeing that pg_ctl is really unfixable. Is the config-only directory really a valuable feature if pg_ctl does not work? If we could document that pg_ctl (and pg_upgrade) doesn't work with config-only directories, at least we would have a consistent API. The question is whether the config-only directory is useful with this restriction. Are people recording the postmaster pid somewhere when they start it? I doubt they are parsing the connection information we added to postmaster.pid in 9.1. Are they manually going into the postmaster.pdi file and grabbing the first line? > Arguably, if push came to shove, pg_upgrade wouldn't really need to use > pg_ctl either. It would have to implement the 'wait' mode inside pg_upgrade, and in other applications that needs that behavior. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
