| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Brendan Jurd" <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Use of "postmaster" |
| Date: | 2007-10-03 22:45:30 |
| Message-ID: | 3853.1191451530@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
"Brendan Jurd" <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 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'm certainly not for removing the term from either the code or the
internals documentation; when you are trying to refer to the parent
process as opposed to its children, "postmaster" is convenient,
exact, and justified by umpteen years of history.
We should replace it by terms like "server" in contexts where it's
not actually important to the reader which process is involved,
but I think Peter's hit most of them already ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Brendan Jurd | 2007-10-03 23:54:12 | Re: [HACKERS] Use of "postmaster" |
| Previous Message | Brendan Jurd | 2007-10-03 22:27:50 | Use of "postmaster" |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-10-03 23:21:09 | Re: First steps with 8.3 and autovacuum launcher |
| Previous Message | Brendan Jurd | 2007-10-03 22:27:50 | Use of "postmaster" |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Brendan Jurd | 2007-10-03 23:54:12 | Re: [HACKERS] Use of "postmaster" |
| Previous Message | Brendan Jurd | 2007-10-03 22:27:50 | Use of "postmaster" |