On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 11:58 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> Right. It seems that, in addition to the above, there also remains
> some disagreement about:
>
> (1) how much checking the script should do to provide error messages
> and exit codes which target the specific problems versus generic "I'm
> broken" messages for problems which prevent it from getting to the
> point of being able to run pg_ctl,
>
> (2) whether the log functions required by the standard should be
> used, or whether we should assume that output to stdout and/or stderr
> (which the standard says may be silently discarded without showing
> anywhere) should be used instead,
>
> (3) whether we should provide comments of the general intent of
> sections of code when the implementing code is providing functionality
> required by the standard, versus assuming that the reader can match
> the code portions to the relevant sections of the standard without
> supporting comments.
I'm not so worried about these points. They can always be adjusted
later. The point about how to involve pg_ctl is more critical.
