On 2023-04-12 We 11:01, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 10:17 PM Yurii Rashkovskii <yrashk@gmail.com> wrote:
I appreciate your support on the pid file concern. What questions do you have about this feature with regard to its desirability and/or implementation? I'd love to learn from your insight and address any of those if I can.
I don't have any particularly specific concerns. But, you know, if a
bunch of other people, especially people already known the community
showed up on this thread to say "hey, I'd like that too" or "that
would be better than what we have now," well then that would make me
think "hey, we should probably move forward with this thing." But so
far the only people to comment are Tom and Andrew. Tom, in addition to
complaining about the PID file thing, also basically said that the
feature didn't seem necessary to him, and Andrew's comments seem to me
to suggest the same thing. So it kind of seems like you've convinced
zero people that this is a thing we should have, and that's not very
many.
Not quite, I just suggested looking at a different approach. I'm not opposed to the idea in principle.
I agree with you that parsing the pid file shouldn't be hard or unreasonable.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
