| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_ctl and port number detection |
| Date: | 2010-12-18 23:47:00 |
| Message-ID: | 4D0D47F4.9000009@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-12-18 23:54:13 | Re: pg_ctl and port number detection |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-12-18 23:23:53 | Re: pg_ctl and port number detection |