Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 10/03/2011 04:41 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On m?n, 2011-10-03 at 15:09 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> Why were people not using pg_ctl? Because of the limitations which
> >> were fixed in PG 9.1? As Dave already said, windows already has to
> >> use pg_ctl.
> > Historically, pg_ctl has had a lot of limitations. Just off the top of
> > my head, nonstandard ports used to break it, nonstandard socket
> > directories used to break it, nonstandard authentication setups used to
> > break it, the waiting business was unreliable, the stop modes were weird
> > and not flexible enough, the behavior in error cases does not conform to
> > LSB init script conventions, there were some race conditions that I
> > don't recall the details of right now. And you had to keep a list of
> > exactly which of these bugs were addressed in which version.
>
>
> I'm not sure ancient history helps us much here. Many of these went
> away long ago.
Agreed. You could argue that pg_ctl 9.1 is much better than anything
anyone would be able to craft in a script.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +