Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] Use of "postmaster"

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Brendan Jurd" <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Use of "postmaster"
Date: 2007-10-03 22:45:30
Message-ID: 3853.1191451530@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docspgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
"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

Responses

pgsql-docs by date

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

pgsql-hackers by date

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

pgsql-patches by date

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

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group