Re: Linux LSB init script - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Kevin Grittner
Subject Re: Linux LSB init script
Date
Msg-id 4A9BE98B020000250002A66E@gw.wicourts.gov
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Linux LSB init script  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
Responses Re: Linux LSB init script  (Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>)
Re: Linux LSB init script  (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> While the major distributions support LSB, the major distributions
> also have PostgreSQL packages available and so will likely not need
> the init script shipped in the source.
My counter-argument to that would be that the SuSE distribution's
version of PostgreSQL is so out-of-date that we don't install it.  It
also doesn't enable debug info or integer date times.  So we switched
to build from source before we actually got as far as loading any
data.  I'm inclined to recommend the same to others.
> it might be best to keep both, if they are maintained.
Sounds good to me; although, now that there is a full LSB version, I
should probably withdraw my meager suggested patch to the existing
linux script, eh?  (If they're using an LSB conforming implementation,
they'll want the linux-lsb script, and if they're not, the suggested
patch has no point, I think.)  Unless someone thinks otherwise, I'll
drop that patch to the linux script from the CF page.  Any thoughts on
what that script needs, if anything?
-Kevin


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: \d+ for long view definitions?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: \d+ for long view definitions?