Voting: "pg_ctl init" versus "initdb" - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Zdenek Kotala
Subject Voting: "pg_ctl init" versus "initdb"
Date
Msg-id 1258207665.1456.21.camel@localhost
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: Voting: "pg_ctl init" versus "initdb"  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: Voting: "pg_ctl init" versus "initdb"  (Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: Voting: "pg_ctl init" versus "initdb"  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
List pgsql-general
Hi all,

I prepared patch which extend pg_ctl functionality and add "init"
command which do same thing like initdb (it calls initdb on the
background). The idea behind this is to have only one command which
control database. pg_ctl already has "start", "stop", "restart",
"reload" and so on. To have "init" is logical. There is also second
reason for that. Initdb does not fit pg binaries naming convection which
could lead to name conflict in the /usr/bin.

Because there is doubt if someone else want this I would like to ask
here for your opinion. There are following options:


1) Yeah I like pg_ctl init

        "pg_ctl  init" will be preferred method and initdb will
        disappear from usr/bin in the future.

2) Good, but keep initdb as well

        pg_ctl init and initdb stays forever

3) Do not touch my lovely initdb

        pg_ctl init is nonsense, initdb is only correct way.


    Thanks for your response

        Zdenek




pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Martin Gainty
Date:
Subject: Re: Rejected token 3A37-A32F-9E8B
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Voting: "pg_ctl init" versus "initdb"