Re: Adding a --quiet option to initdb

Jim C. Nasby wrote:

>On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 11:36:15AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>  
>
>>James William Pye wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Why should initdb give it [processing
>>>information] to the user if the user didn't request it in the first
>>>place?
>>>      
>>>
>>Because it shows important information that we want the user to see.
>>    
>>
>
>Plus it can be a fairly long-running process on slower machines, so
>providing feedback to the user is good.
>  
>

Moreover, we should not change behaviour just on aesthetic grounds. For 
example, if initdb were suddenly to become quiet by default, we would 
need to add some version-specific processing to the buildfarm.

As for a --quiet option, I just don't see why it is needed when >/dev/null works perfectly well.

cheers

andrew