Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> The problem with pg_ctl is that it's indirectly calling postgres, and it
>> doesn't have a lot of a way to know what happened after calling it;
>> consider the mess we have with pg_ctl -w.
>
> True enough but perhaps that is a problem in itself. IMO, we should be
> encouraging people to never touch the postgres binary. If that means
> pg_ctl becomes a lot smarter, then we have to consider that as well.
That's a great idea, but I don't think we should weigh down this idea of
config checking with that responsability. We could discuss solutions to
this problem, but I think it's going to be quite a lot harder than you
seem to think.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
