On Mon, 2013-01-14 at 06:37 -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Here is a patch to add an option -I/--idempotent to pg_ctl, the result
> of which is that pg_ctl doesn't error on start or stop if the server is
> already running or already stopped.
So apparently, pg_upgrade needs the existing behavior,
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 04:07:45PM +1100, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> >>> I don't think I like --force because it isn't clear if we are forcing
> >>> the start to have done something, or forcing the server to be running.
> >
> > Do we need this idempotent feature for "stop" too?
>
> Yes, of course.
>>> I don't think I like --force because it isn't clear if we are forcing
>>> the start to have done something, or forcing the server to be running.
>
> Do we need this idempotent feature for "stop" too?
Yes, of course.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
--
Sent vi
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 04:34:50PM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 1/28/13 9:29 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > pg_upgrade uses that to find out of the server was already running or if
> > we started it. This is to start the server to remove the
> > postmaster.pid file.
>
> It's currently a bit
On 1/28/13 9:29 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> pg_upgrade uses that to find out of the server was already running or if
> we started it. This is to start the server to remove the
> postmaster.pid file.
It's currently a bit missed up anyway. pg_ctl start is successful if
the server is already started
Bruce Momjian writes:
> pg_upgrade uses that to find out of the server was already running or if
> we started it. This is to start the server to remove the
> postmaster.pid file. Also, no one has explained how not knowing if -o
> options were used was a safe.
What happened to the plan for pg_up
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 04:19:15PM +1100, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> > OK, I had some time to think about this. Basically, we have three
> > outcomes for pg_ctl start:
> >
> > server not running and pg_ctl start success
> > server start failed
> > server already running
> >
> > Can't we
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> > OK, I had some time to think about this. Basically, we have three
> > outcomes for pg_ctl start:
> >
> > server not running and pg_ctl start success
> > server start failed
> > server already running
> >
> > Can't we ju
> OK, I had some time to think about this. Basically, we have three
> outcomes for pg_ctl start:
>
> server not running and pg_ctl start success
> server start failed
> server already running
>
> Can't we just assign different return values to these cases, e.g. 0, 1,
> 2? We
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 09:29:35PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 03:40:08PM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On 14 January 2013 15:29, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > >> > Here is a patch to add an option -I/--idempotent to pg_c
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 03:40:08PM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 14 January 2013 15:29, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> >> > Here is a patch to add an option -I/--idempotent to pg_ctl, the result
> >> > of which is that pg_ctl doesn't error on start or s
On 14 January 2013 15:29, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> > Here is a patch to add an option -I/--idempotent to pg_ctl, the result
>> > of which is that pg_ctl doesn't error on start or stop if the server is
>> > already running or already stopped.
>>
>> Ide
I am working on reviewing the patch. Patch apply without warning/error on
master branch. My findings are as following i.e.
1. Behavior change in pg_ctl return value i.e.
*
*
* Server already running*
a. Without Patch
inst asif$ ./bin/pg_ctl -D data_test/ -l data_test.log start
pg_ctl: anoth
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 09:05:59AM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> I agree, answering the question, whether the particular attempt of
> starting a server succeeded or not, will need the current behaviour.
> Now, question is which of these behaviours should be default?
That would work. pg_upgrade k
I agree, answering the question, whether the particular attempt of
starting a server succeeded or not, will need the current behaviour.
Now, question is which of these behaviours should be default?
Bruce, what if we make idempotent behaviour default and provide an
option for current behaviour?
On
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 09:00:25PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 23.01.2013 20:56, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 06:03:28PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> >>anyway, +1 for making this as default option. Going that path, would
> >>we be breaking backward compatibility? Ther
On 23.01.2013 20:56, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 06:03:28PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
anyway, +1 for making this as default option. Going that path, would
we be breaking backward compatibility? There might be scripts, (being
already used), which depend upon the current behavi
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 06:03:28PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Peter Eisentraut writes:
> >> On 1/14/13 10:22 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> Also it appears to me that the hunk at lines 812ff is changing the
> >>> default behavior, which is not w
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> On 1/14/13 10:22 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Also it appears to me that the hunk at lines 812ff is changing the
>>> default behavior, which is not what the patch is advertised to do.
>
>> True, I had forgotten to mention t
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 8:48 PM, Phil Sorber wrote:
>
> +1
>
Is there more work being done on this, or is the current patch ready to review?
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hack
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> On 1/14/13 10:22 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Also it appears to me that the hunk at lines 812ff is changing the
>>> default behavior, which is not what the patch is advertised to do.
>
>> True, I had forgotten to mention
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> That's Japanese for idempotent. ;-) LOL
>
+1.
--
Michael Paquier
http://michael.otacoo.com
On 01/15/2013 07:55 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 1/14/13 10:22 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Idempotent is a ten-dollar word. Can we find something that average
>> people wouldn't need to consult a dictionary to understand?
>
> My suggestion in the original thread was --oknodo, but people didn't
> l
2013-01-15 20:28 keltezéssel, Bruce Momjian írta:
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:25:23AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera writes:
Vik Reykja escribi�:
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Idempotent is a ten-dollar word. Can we find something that average
people wouldn't need
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:55:41AM -0500, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 1/14/13 10:22 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Idempotent is a ten-dollar word. Can we find something that average
> > people wouldn't need to consult a dictionary to understand?
>
> My suggestion in the original thread was --oknodo, b
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:25:23AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > Vik Reykja escribi�:
> >> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> Idempotent is a ten-dollar word. Can we find something that average
> >>> people wouldn't need to consult a dictionary to unders
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On 1/14/13 10:22 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Also it appears to me that the hunk at lines 812ff is changing the
>> default behavior, which is not what the patch is advertised to do.
> True, I had forgotten to mention that.
> Since it's already the behavior for start, anothe
On 1/14/13 10:22 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Idempotent is a ten-dollar word. Can we find something that average
> people wouldn't need to consult a dictionary to understand?
My suggestion in the original thread was --oknodo, but people didn't
like that either.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
On 1/14/13 10:22 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Also it appears to me that the hunk at lines 812ff is changing the
> default behavior, which is not what the patch is advertised to do.
True, I had forgotten to mention that.
Since it's already the behavior for start, another option would be to
just make it
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Vik Reykja escribió:
>> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Idempotent is a ten-dollar word. Can we find something that average
>>> people wouldn't need to consult a dictionary to understand?
>> I disagree that we should dumb things down when the word m
Vik Reykja escribió:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > > Here is a patch to add an option -I/--idempotent to pg_ctl, the result
> > > of which is that pg_ctl doesn't error on start or stop if the server is
> > > already running or already stopp
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > Here is a patch to add an option -I/--idempotent to pg_ctl, the result
> > of which is that pg_ctl doesn't error on start or stop if the server is
> > already running or already stopped.
>
> Idempotent is a ten-dolla
2013/1/14 Tom Lane :
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Peter Eisentraut writes:
Here is a patch to add an option -I/--idempotent to pg_ctl, the result
of which is that pg_ctl doesn't error on start or stop if the server is
already running or already stopped.
>
>>> Ide
2013-01-14 16:22 keltezéssel, Tom Lane írta:
Peter Eisentraut writes:
Here is a patch to add an option -I/--idempotent to pg_ctl, the result
of which is that pg_ctl doesn't error on start or stop if the server is
already running or already stopped.
Idempotent is a ten-dollar word. Can we find
On 14 January 2013 15:29, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > > Here is a patch to add an option -I/--idempotent to pg_ctl, the result
> > > of which is that pg_ctl doesn't error on start or stop if the server is
> > > already running or already stopped.
> >
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>>> Here is a patch to add an option -I/--idempotent to pg_ctl, the result
>>> of which is that pg_ctl doesn't error on start or stop if the server is
>>> already running or already stopped.
>> Idempotent is a ten-dollar word.
Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > Here is a patch to add an option -I/--idempotent to pg_ctl, the result
> > of which is that pg_ctl doesn't error on start or stop if the server is
> > already running or already stopped.
>
> Idempotent is a ten-dollar word. Can we find something tha
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> Here is a patch to add an option -I/--idempotent to pg_ctl, the result
> of which is that pg_ctl doesn't error on start or stop if the server is
> already running or already stopped.
Idempotent is a ten-dollar word. Can we find something that average
people wouldn't ne
38 matches
Mail list logo
