On Sat, 6 Jul 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Sullivan <andrew@libertyrms.info> writes:
> > On Fri, Jul 05, 2002 at 12:39:13PM -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:
> >> One other usability note: why can't postmaster perform the steps of
> >> an initdb if -D points to an empty directory?
>
> > Rank newbies shouldn't be protected in this way, partly because if
> > something goes wrong, _they won't know what to do_. Please, please,
> > don't be putting automagic, database destroying functions like that
> > into the postmaster.
>
> I agree completely with Andrew, even though an auto-initdb on an empty
> directory presumably won't destroy any data. What it *does* do is
> effectively mask a DBA error. We'll be getting panic-stricken support
> calls/emails saying "all my databases are gone! Postgres sucks!" when
> the problem is just that PG was restarted with the wrong -D pointer. The
> existing behavior points that out loud and clear, in a context where the
> DBA shouldn't have too much trouble figuring out what he did wrong.
Okay, I'm sitting on the fence on this one ... but, as DBA for several
PgSQL installs on at least a half dozen machines or more, if someone
restarts PG with the wrong -D pointer, they haven't setup their machine to
live through a reboot ... first thing any DBA *should* be doing after they
have 'initdb'd their system is add the appropriate start-up scripts for
after the reboot ...
Also, what is the difference between forgetting where you put it in an
initdb or on the first postmaster? Why not put in a 'safety'? If you
start up postmaster with -D on a directory that doesn't yet exist, it
prompts the DBA as to whether they are certain that they wish to do this?
Just thoughts ... I'm happy enough with initdb *shrug*
