From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, 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 |
Date: | 2006-06-23 06:08:45 |
Message-ID: | 200606230608.k5N68jN15295@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
> >>> though - Magnus &
> >>> I were wondering if Peter's change means we no longer need to ship
> >>> postmaster.exe and postgres.exe with pgInstaller. Presumably
> >>> we can just use postgres.exe for everything now?
>
> >> Won't we still need to know if we are called as postmaster or
> >> postgres?
>
> No. The entire point of the recent changes is that the behavior no
> longer depends on the name of the executable, only on the switches.
>
> In the Unix distributions, the only reason to keep the postmaster
> symlink is to avoid breaking old start scripts that invoke "postmaster".
> We may be able to drop the symlink eventually, though I see no reason
> to be in a hurry about it.
>
> In the Windows case, I think you'd have to ask if there are any start-
> script-equivalents outside your control that you're worried about
> breaking. Given the distribution-size penalty you face by having two
> copies, obviously you're more motivated to drop the extra .exe sooner
> than we'll probably do in the Unix distros.
Can't the installer just copy postgres.exe to postmaster.exe during
install?
--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Page | 2006-06-23 07:10:15 | Re: [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2006-06-23 05:44:13 | Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC |