Does it make sense to add a -q (quiet) flag to initdb?
Hello,
Per: https://www.commandprompt.com/blog/can_i_make_initdb_quiet/
This was a question that was asked on #postgresql. Obviously we found a
work around but I wonder if it makes sense to add a -q to solve some of
these issues? (I could see it being useful with automation).
Sincerely,
JD
--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
+1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.
Unless otherwise stated, opinions are my own.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
On 10/25/16 11:26 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Per: https://www.commandprompt.com/blog/can_i_make_initdb_quiet/
This was a question that was asked on #postgresql. Obviously we found a
work around but I wonder if it makes sense to add a -q to solve some of
these issues? (I could see it being useful with automation).
Well, there's always pg_ctl initdb -s (not sure why it's -s instead of
the more common -q...). ISTM it'd be better to point people that
direction, but a silent option to initdb certainly wouldn't hurt (and
would maybe simplify pg_ctl as well...)
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532) mobile: 512-569-9461
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers