Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 11:36:15AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
>
>>James William Pye wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Why should initdb give it [processing
>>>information] to the user if the user didn't request it in the first
>>>place?
>>>
>>>
>>Because it shows important information that we want the user to see.
>>
>>
>
>Plus it can be a fairly long-running process on slower machines, so
>providing feedback to the user is good.
>
>
Moreover, we should not change behaviour just on aesthetic grounds. For
example, if initdb were suddenly to become quiet by default, we would
need to add some version-specific processing to the buildfarm.
As for a --quiet option, I just don't see why it is needed when >/dev/null works perfectly well.
cheers
andrew
