On mån, 2011-10-03 at 17:12 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > On 10/03/2011 04:41 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > On mån, 2011-10-03 at 15:09 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >> Why were people not using pg_ctl? Because of the limitations which > >> were fixed in PG 9.1? As Dave already said, windows already has to > >> use pg_ctl. > > Historically, pg_ctl has had a lot of limitations. Just off the top of > > my head, nonstandard ports used to break it, nonstandard socket > > directories used to break it, nonstandard authentication setups used to > > break it, the waiting business was unreliable, the stop modes were weird > > and not flexible enough, the behavior in error cases does not conform to > > LSB init script conventions, there were some race conditions that I > > don't recall the details of right now. And you had to keep a list of > > exactly which of these bugs were addressed in which version.
> I'm not sure ancient history helps us much here. Many of these went > away long ago. But some of them are still there. 8.4 is still the packaged version in some popular Linux distributions, and the fabled fixed-it-all version 9.1 was just released a few weeks ago. So in current production environments, pg_ctl is still an occasional liability. > Our job should be to make it better. Yeah, don't get me wrong, let's make it better. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
