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

Re: [PATCHES] postmaster/postgres merge for testing

From: Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] postmaster/postgres merge for testing
Date: 2006-01-24 08:40:51
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
On 1/23/06, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > Attached is a patch that merges postmaster and postgres into just a
> > postmaster command.
> I had some second thoughts about this, specifically about which
> direction do we really want to go in.  With this patch, it no longer
> really matters what the executable file is named, right?  We were both
> implicitly assuming that the name should end up being "postmaster",
> but I think there's a good case to be made that the right thing to do
> is to migrate in the direction of having just one executable named
> "postgres".  We've seen complaints before that having a daemon named
> "postmaster" confuses newbies into thinking it's got something to do
> with mail.  And it's already the case that the child processes all call
> themselves "postgres", which will become even more confusing if there is
> no longer any executable named "postgres".

+1 for 'postgres'.


In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Christopher Kings-LynneDate: 2006-01-24 09:03:02
Subject: Cache lookup failed error in tsearch2?
Previous:From: Christopher Kings-LynneDate: 2006-01-24 08:21:47
Subject: Weird pg_dumpall bug?

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Achilleus MantziosDate: 2006-01-24 09:06:52
Subject: performance change
Previous:From: Alon GoldshuvDate: 2006-01-24 08:02:20
Subject: Libpq COPY optimization patch

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group