Re: pg_ctl and port number detection

Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> On 12/18/2010 06:23 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> >> If you really think that pulling a port number out of the pid file is an
> >> improvement over what pg_ctl does now, then you need to start by storing
> >> the port number, as such, in the pid file. Not something that might or
> >> might not be related to the port number. But what we have to discuss
> >> before that is whether we mind having a significant postmaster version
> >> dependency in pg_ctl.
> > OK, good point on the version issue. Let's see if we get more
> > complaints before changing this. Thanks.
> >
>
> Wasn't there a proposal to provide an explicit port parameter to pg_ctl,
> instead of relying on PGPORT? That would probably be a small advance.

I do not remember that suggestion.

I wonder if we should write the port number as the 4th line in
postmaster.pid and return in a few major releases and use that. We
could fall back and use our existing code if there is no 4th line.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +