Thread: more on initdb
Is there any reason other than historical that the System Views setup isn't a separate script fed to postgres by initdb, like, say, the information schema file? If there isn't a good reason should we unwire it as part of moving to a C version of initdb? cheers andrew
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> Is there any reason other than historical that the System Views setup
> isn't a separate script fed to postgres by initdb, like, say, the
> information schema file? If there isn't a good reason should we unwire
> it as part of moving to a C version of initdb?
Just historical, and go for it.
regards, tom lane
PS: please don't send stuff bcc to pgsql-hackers. I was fortunate to
notice this in my probable-spam folder before deleting it ...
Tom Lane wrote: > >PS: please don't send stuff bcc to pgsql-hackers. I was fortunate to >notice this in my probable-spam folder before deleting it ... > > Yeah, that was a fat finger mistake. cheers andrew
Tom Lane wrote: >Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes: > > >>Is there any reason other than historical that the System Views setup >>isn't a separate script fed to postgres by initdb, like, say, the >>information schema file? If there isn't a good reason should we unwire >>it as part of moving to a C version of initdb? >> >> > >Just historical, and go for it. > > > I might. :-) Actually, it has struck me that the way we go about doing initdb is kinda hokey, again probably for historic reasons, and that if it were being redesigned from scratch today a better way would be to have an cluster image built at compile time and just copied and tweaked at runtime. Almost all the required info appears to be known at compile time, AFAICS. I assume we don't expect people to hack the input files like postgres.bki or information_schema.sql. My aim has been to get something that will enable a complete Windows build (i.e. no shell or other external reliance) when the fork/signal problems on Windows are solved, and I think I am already at that point, at least as far as my testing has been able to go - the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. So making a change like I suggested above would be a longer term issue. I guess it ain't broke so it doesn't need to be fixed, so I'm not sure if it would be worth it. Thoughts? cheers andrew
Andrew Dunstan writes: > I might. :-) Actually, it has struck me that the way we go about doing > initdb is kinda hokey, again probably for historic reasons, and that if > it were being redesigned from scratch today a better way would be to > have an cluster image built at compile time and just copied and tweaked > at runtime. One of the constraints that would make this difficult is that during the build process you cannot run the programs you just compiled, at least not without opening a can of worms. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> I guess it ain't broke so it doesn't need
> to be fixed, so I'm not sure if it would be worth it.
That's about my feeling. There's nothing wrong with the initdb process,
other than its dependency on shell scripting, and so no visible gain to
be had by reimplementing it further than replacing the shell script.
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: >Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes: > > >>I guess it ain't broke so it doesn't need >>to be fixed, so I'm not sure if it would be worth it. >> >> > >That's about my feeling. There's nothing wrong with the initdb process, >other than its dependency on shell scripting, and so no visible gain to >be had by reimplementing it further than replacing the shell script. > > > OK, I'm happy enough with that - just throwing out ideas. cheers andrew
Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> initdb is kinda hokey, again probably for historic reasons, and that if
> it were being redesigned from scratch today a better way would be to
> have an cluster image built at compile time and just copied and tweaked
> at runtime. Almost all the required info appears to be known at compile
> time, AFAICS.
One thing we would rather not have to freeze at compile time is the
locale settings...
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: >Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes: > > >>initdb is kinda hokey, again probably for historic reasons, and that if >>it were being redesigned from scratch today a better way would be to >>have an cluster image built at compile time and just copied and tweaked >>at runtime. Almost all the required info appears to be known at compile >>time, AFAICS. >> >> > >One thing we would rather not have to freeze at compile time is the >locale settings... > > > That would have been one of the tweaks :-) Anyway, I'll let sleeping dogs lie. cheers andrew