Received: from makus.postgresql.org (makus.postgresql.org [98.129.198.125]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AED8145DDC6 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 21:44:38 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail-qa0-f42.google.com ([209.85.216.42]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SgmYf-0005AE-Ba for pgsql-www@postgresql.org; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 00:44:37 +0000 Received: by qafi31 with SMTP id i31so2170769qaf.1 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 17:44:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=rbkIk4/RLRLOL0xBjxbNNH7kq9exNpHatAdyHO2nmHA=; b=ovepna5Pp9zkeCYX9krHYk3Aa6HOsKcdPle/wQ8JQWjS8j4BesY5ZRotb7SiXBsSnD /rpO0zVpqWxB995VOwfF5pvDLJGRyMWmHiZ5lX87RLw8afIkpGUx4KpecfWItMFhAIc5 VH+iEiDPAnpbL0fusX4P1sSPclGnjAQOkwboaW9NWsM7cyQlZlyGE1sEV1vLupoFafnk j0ifoST3YNA2I0uTZJKJp/uy5CzQ3ZkXX9l/9oP2WUl+DSTKygRlqnQM2fFeRLKKu/Nl oPU99fukiP7zGfsZcwNeFC6CeyK3AOQjA+Wbwk87XCa76ioq0lQrIilCLHg2fgn+Sbky 5Cmw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.135.130 with SMTP id n2mr4716894qct.85.1340066664823; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 17:44:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.52.70 with HTTP; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 17:44:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1340005330.3923.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <4FDDAA9F0200002500048597@gw.wicourts.gov> <27201.1339951215@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1340005330.3923.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 08:44:24 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Some restructuring of the download section From: Magnus Hagander To: Guillaume Lelarge Cc: Tom Lane , Dave Page , Kevin Grittner , "pgsql-www@postgresql.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm43ixsWsqounU1B9AcKfpJZXDsjnw9fhug+8K0G3ZptUk6J3shoc76/lD1pN4vqnjSuYzH X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-Archive-Number: 201206/45 X-Sequence-Number: 20739 On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Guillaume Lelarge wrote: > On Sun, 2012-06-17 at 12:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Dave Page writes: >> > On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Magnus Hagander = wrote: >> >> Uh, that part is just incorrect. Several sets of platform packages >> >> certainly do initdb for you. And AFAIK every single one of them on >> >> Linux at least do service setup for you. >> >> > Hmm, clearly it's been a while since I did a PG installation on Debian >> > (oddly!), as that does seem to leave the server up and running. I'm >> > fairly certain it didn't in the past. >> > RPMs on the other hand, do not. >> >> FWIW, Red-Hat-based systems have a strong distro policy against starting >> servers merely because the package got installed --- the theory is that >> an "everything" install should not leave the user running a bunch of >> servers he doesn't know about and maybe hasn't configured securely. >> >> I'm a bit surprised to hear that Debian does it differently; although >> it's possible that they distinguish manual from automatic install >> scenarios. =A0It's a little bit saner to do an auto service start if you >> know that the user explicitly requested this specific package. >> > > When you use aptitude or apt-get to install the server package, it will > install the binaires, execute initdb, and start the server. I much > prefer the RPM way of doing it (IOW, not starting the server). Anyway, I > guess there are both pros and cons in both methods. Yeah. But it's a good point that since they are different, I should add info to each of the pages saying exactly how it behaves on that specific platform. --=20 =A0Magnus Hagander =A0Me: http://www.hagander.net/ =A0Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/