Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-2.hub.org [200.46.204.251])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3CCB133616B
	for <pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Wed, 15 Dec 2010 23:41:18 -0400 (AST)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.251]) (amavisd-maia,
	port 10024) with ESMTP id 90198-08 for
	<pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Thu, 16 Dec 2010 03:41:11 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 126B81336971
	for <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 23:41:10 -0400 (AST)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id oBG3fAS1003676;
	Wed, 15 Dec 2010 22:41:10 -0500 (EST)
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
cc: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>,
 pgsql-docs <pgsql-docs@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Obsolete description in pg_ctl-ref.sgml 
In-reply-to: <AANLkTim+k4d7wfjEx4OByJrtBEeeeuE8wYdDQWUcv9wb@mail.gmail.com> 
References: <AANLkTi=aAZvCCOaRS=GK4GzoZ0shXWKi0rXBxTSX+RCt@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTimoOFAN+akgYcmXuHiPSFjtvFCjWrKRrcEb966f@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTikYmOOSCp3EXJ=+xDvmYemzwU51R9+-2GzTz-KL@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTinpn6n8vfR+zeY0eL5dLqxCWwAipYgpb+t6Lu2V@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTimTnqw8aBTZC5=zfQ8t=YM+S40TTru2BP4dKD1H@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTim+k4d7wfjEx4OByJrtBEeeeuE8wYdDQWUcv9wb@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
	message dated "Wed, 15 Dec 2010 21:10:00 -0500"
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 22:41:10 -0500
Message-ID: <3675.1292470870@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.91 tagged_above=-5 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9,
	T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 201012/16
X-Sequence-Number: 6252

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> Hmm.  I'm inclined to just remove that sentence.  The fact that you
> can make the operation fail by pointing it at someplace where there's
> not a server listening doesn't really seem to merit a disclaimer.  I
> think waiting IS a well-defined operation now; it just won't succeed
> if you configure it in a way that doesn't make sense.

+1

			regards, tom lane