Re: pg_ctl and port number detection

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_ctl and port number detection
Date: 2010-12-20 05:10:38
Message-ID: 21860.1292821838@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
>> 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.

No. If it goes in, it should go in as the third line. The shmem key
data is private to the server --- we do not want external programs
assuming anything at all about the private part of postmaster.pid.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Itagaki Takahiro 2010-12-20 05:22:31 Re: Extensions and custom_variable_classes
Previous Message Robert Haas 2010-12-20 04:42:24 Re: Extensions and custom_variable_classes