Re: [HACKERS] Re: syslog logging setup broken?
Nic Ferrier <nferrier@tapsellferrier.co.uk>
From: "Nic Ferrier" <nferrier@tapsellferrier.co.uk>
To: pgman@candle.pha.pa.us, peter_e@gmx.net
Cc: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
Date: 2001-02-04T22:37:12Z
Lists: pgsql-bugs, pgsql-hackers
>>> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> 04-Feb-01 10:07:40 PM >>> >> The bottom line is that, IMHO, writing a portable >> init.d style (or any other such concept) startup file >> that is ready for blind use is beyond practicality. >> It might be better to collect a few of the ones that are >> being used now (Red Hat-style, SuSE-style, Debian, >> *BSD-style) and ship them. This should be coordinated >>with the packagers, though. >Should I remove init.d from /contrib? I'm just a postgres user but I don't agree with Peter. I think the file is valuable. The file is valuable for people not using a distribution such as Debian, etc... and also is usefull to people developing packages for distributions. I don't use a packaged postgres and it was certainly valuable to me because it served as an example of what I had to do to get postgres going quickly in the way that I wanted. I sent Peter an updated file that IMHO irons out some problems which may cause Peter to consider the file broken: - ouptut was being piped to the logger if "syslog" was on It's not necessary to do that because postgres handles the decision about syslog depending on the conf file. - the postmaster was being started without nohup - the system for setting options wasn't very usefull the system that I've replaced it with isn't terribly usefull either but it works. So anyway, my view as a user is that it's usefull and that a package specific version would come with the package anyway. Nic Ferrier Tapsell-Ferrier Limited