"Brendan Jurd" <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Now that we've renamed the server binary to "postgres", what is the
> status on use of the name "postmaster"?  Is it now deprecated?  And if
> not, is there any point in keeping it around?

I'm certainly not for removing the term from either the code or the
internals documentation; when you are trying to refer to the parent
process as opposed to its children, "postmaster" is convenient,
exact, and justified by umpteen years of history.

We should replace it by terms like "server" in contexts where it's
not actually important to the reader which process is involved,
but I think Peter's hit most of them already ...

			regards, tom lane

In response to

• Use of "postmaster" at 2007-10-03 22:27:50 from Brendan Jurd

Responses

• Re: [HACKERS] Use of "postmaster" at 2007-10-03 23:54:12 from Brendan Jurd

pgsql-docs by date

Next:	From: Brendan Jurd	Date: 2007-10-03 23:54:12
	Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Use of "postmaster"
Previous:	From: Brendan Jurd	Date: 2007-10-03 22:27:50
	Subject: Use of "postmaster"

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Alvaro Herrera	Date: 2007-10-03 23:21:09
	Subject: Re: First steps with 8.3 and autovacuum launcher
Previous:	From: Brendan Jurd	Date: 2007-10-03 22:27:50
	Subject: Use of "postmaster"

pgsql-patches by date

Next:	From: Brendan Jurd	Date: 2007-10-03 23:54:12
	Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Use of "postmaster"
Previous:	From: Brendan Jurd	Date: 2007-10-03 22:27:50
	Subject: Use of "postmaster"