On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 09:00:25PM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 23.01.2013 20:56, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 06:03:28PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> >>anyway, +1 for making this as default option. Going that path, would
> >>we be breaking backward compatibility? There might be scripts, (being
> >>already used), which depend upon the current behaviour.
> >
> >FYI, I have a pg_upgrade patch that relies on the old throw-an-error
> >behavior. Will there be a way to still throw an error if we make
> >idempotent the default?
>
> Could you check the status with "pg_ctl status" first, and throw an
> error if it's not what you expected?
Well, this could still create a period of time where someone else starts
the server between my status and my starting it. Do we really want
that? And what if I want to start it with my special -o parameters, and
I then can't tell if it was already running or it is using my
parameters. I think an idempotent default is going to cause problems.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +