Re: Some restructuring of the download section
От | Guillaume Lelarge |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Some restructuring of the download section |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1340005330.3923.1.camel@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Some restructuring of the download section (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Some restructuring of the download section
|
Список | pgsql-www |
On Sun, 2012-06-17 at 12:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes: > > On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > >> Uh, that part is just incorrect. Several sets of platform packages > >> certainly do initdb for you. And AFAIK every single one of them on > >> Linux at least do service setup for you. > > > Hmm, clearly it's been a while since I did a PG installation on Debian > > (oddly!), as that does seem to leave the server up and running. I'm > > fairly certain it didn't in the past. > > RPMs on the other hand, do not. > > FWIW, Red-Hat-based systems have a strong distro policy against starting > servers merely because the package got installed --- the theory is that > an "everything" install should not leave the user running a bunch of > servers he doesn't know about and maybe hasn't configured securely. > > I'm a bit surprised to hear that Debian does it differently; although > it's possible that they distinguish manual from automatic install > scenarios. It's a little bit saner to do an auto service start if you > know that the user explicitly requested this specific package. > When you use aptitude or apt-get to install the server package, it will install the binaires, execute initdb, and start the server. I much prefer the RPM way of doing it (IOW, not starting the server). Anyway, I guess there are both pros and cons in both methods. -- Guillaume http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info http://www.dalibo.com
В списке pgsql-www по дате отправления: