On 19.04.23 06:21, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> I don't think involving pg_ctl is necessary or desirable, since it would
>> make any future changes like that even more complicated.
> I'm a bit confused by this- if pg_ctl is invoked then we have
> more-or-less full control over parsing and reporting out the answer, so
> while it might be a bit more complicated for us, it seems surely simpler
> for the end user. Or maybe you're referring to something here that I'm
> not thinking of?
Getting pg_ctl involved just requires a lot more work. We need to write
actual code, documentation, tests, help output, translations, etc. If
we ever change anything, then we need to transition the command-line
arguments somehow, add more documentation, etc.
A file is a much simpler interface: You just write to it, write two
sentences of documentation, that's all.
Or to put it another way, if we don't think a file is an appropriate
interface, then why is a PID file appropriate?
> Independent of the above though ... this hand-wringing about what we
> might do in the relative near-term when we haven't done much in the past
> many-many years regarding listen_addresses or port strikes me as
> unlikely to be necessary. Let's pick something and get it done and
> accept that we may have to change it at some point in the future, but
> that's kinda what major releases are for, imv anyway.
Right. I'm perfectly content with just allowing port number 0 and
leaving it at that.