Re: drop postmaster symlink

On Sat, 07 Jan 2023 18:38:25 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> "Karl O. Pinc" <kop(at)karlpinc(dot)com> writes:
> > This is a review of Peter's 2 patches. I see only 1 small problem.
> >
>
> > Looking at the documentation, a "postmaster" in the glossary is
> > defined as the controlling process. This works; it needs to be
> > called something. There is still a postmaster.pid (etc.) in the
> > data directory.
>
> > The word "postmaster" (case insensitive) shows up 84 times in the
> > documentation. I looked at all of these.
>
> Hmm ... I thought this patch was about getting rid of the
> admittedly-obsolete installed symlink. If it's trying to get rid of
> the "postmaster" terminology for our parent process, I'm very strongly
> against that, either as regards to code or documentation.

No. It's about getting rid of the symlink. I was grepping around
to look for use of the symlink, started with the glossary just
to be sure, and saw that "postmaster" is consistently (I think)
used to refer to the controlling, parent, process. And wrote
down what I was doing and what I found as I went along. And then
sent out my notes.

Sorry for the confusion.

Regards,

Karl <kop(at)karlpinc(dot)com>
Free Software: "You don't pay back, you pay forward."
-- Robert A. Heinlein