| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: postmaster.exe vs postgres.exe |
| Date: | 2006-06-22 13:25:49 |
| Message-ID: | 449A9A5D.9020305@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dave Page wrote:
>>Won't we still need to know if we are called as postmaster or
>>postgres?
>>
>>
>
>Unless the 'postmaster' instance starts all it's sub processes with an
>additional option to tell them they're children (I haven't looked at the
>code yet so I dunno if this is how it's done).
>
>For those that are unaware, because Windows doesn't support symlinks, we
>currently ship two copies of the binary. We could save 3.2MB
>(uncompressed, 8.1.4) if we could lose one of them.
>
>
>
>
Windows children could be handled, I think, but here is also standalone
postgres.
3.2 Mb is not insignificant, but I think we can live with it.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hiroshi Saito | 2006-06-22 13:28:00 | Re: postmaster.exe vs postgres.exe (was: CVS HEAD busted on Windows?) |
| Previous Message | Dave Page | 2006-06-22 13:12:55 | Re: postmaster.exe vs postgres.exe (was: CVS HEAD busted on Windows?) |