| From: | "Brendan Jurd" <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Use of "postmaster" |
| Date: | 2007-10-03 22:27:50 |
| Message-ID: | 37ed240d0710031527r5279b336m9dfc0f48a257be90@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
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've come across the occasional reference to "postmaster" in the FAQs
and I was thinking that this would confuse newer users. Anyone
getting started with postgres since the rename probably won't know
what a "postmaster" is. Phrases like "check whether the postmaster is
running" won't make any sense.
The manual (16.3 Starting the Database Server, and 1.2 Architectural
Fundamentals) now seems quite clear that "the database server program
is called postgres". Seems it would be best to apply this
nomenclature consistently, and simply drop the name "postmaster" from
use.
Comments?
Regards,
BJ
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-10-03 22:45:30 | Re: [HACKERS] Use of "postmaster" |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-10-01 23:46:52 | Re: PG on NFS may be just a bad idea |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-10-03 22:45:30 | Re: [HACKERS] Use of "postmaster" |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-10-03 21:39:07 | Re: Getting to 8.3 beta1 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-10-03 22:45:30 | Re: [HACKERS] Use of "postmaster" |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2007-10-03 19:16:23 | Re: OpenSSL Applink |