| From: | "Hiroshi Saito" <z-saito(at)guitar(dot)ocn(dot)ne(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>, "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: postmaster.exe vs postgres.exe (was: CVS HEAD busted on Windows?) |
| Date: | 2006-06-22 13:28:00 |
| Message-ID: | 010201c695ff$af136200$01324d80@hiroshi5jz7dqj |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Dave Page wrote:
> > Won't we still need to know if we are called as postmaster or
> > postgres?
>
> Unless the 'postmaster' instance starts all it's sub processes with an
> additional option to tell them they're children (I haven't looked at the
> code yet so I dunno if this is how it's done).
>
> For those that are unaware, because Windows doesn't support symlinks, we
> currently ship two copies of the binary. We could save 3.2MB
> (uncompressed, 8.1.4) if we could lose one of them.
I look at that structure was successful by huge backend.dll at 8.2.
In spite of not arranging it yet, it looks great. However, Several K-Bytes are
still used vainly. But, I am not investigating which the is still good.
Regards,
Hiroshi Saito
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Page | 2006-06-22 13:39:54 | Re: postmaster.exe vs postgres.exe |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-06-22 13:25:49 | Re: postmaster.exe vs postgres.exe |