Re: initdb issue on 64-bit Windows - (Was: [pgsql-packagers] PG 9.6beta2 tarballs are ready) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: initdb issue on 64-bit Windows - (Was: [pgsql-packagers] PG 9.6beta2 tarballs are ready)
Date
Msg-id 20160629232009.GA216999@alvherre.pgsql
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: initdb issue on 64-bit Windows - (Was: [pgsql-packagers] PG 9.6beta2 tarballs are ready)  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki
> <tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> >> From: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
> >> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Michael Paquier
> >> Sent: Friday, June 24, 2016 11:37 AM
> >> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Craig Ringer <craig@2ndquadrant.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > It might be worth testing that out and adding an initdb startup
> >> > flag to create the directory, since initdb is such a PITA to
> >> > debug.
> >>
> >> I was more thinking about putting that under -DDEBUG for example.
> >
> > I think just the existing option -d (--debug) and/or -n (--no-clean)
> > would be OK.
> 
> If the majority thinks that an option switch is more adapted, I won't
> fight it strongly. Just please let's not mess up with the behavior of
> the existing options.

I think creating crashdumps/ when both -d and -n are specified is a bit
odd but reasonable.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: initdb issue on 64-bit Windows - (Was: [pgsql-packagers] PG 9.6beta2 tarballs are ready)
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: initdb issue on 64-bit Windows - (Was: [pgsql-packagers] PG 9.6beta2 tarballs are ready)