From: | "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_regress starting postmaster |
Date: | 2006-09-24 16:17:08 |
Message-ID: | 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCEA0FBDB@algol.sollentuna.se |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > subject says it all. pg_regress starts "postmaster" (pg_regress.c,
> > line 1515). Shouldn't this be "postgres" these days?
>
> No. We're a very long way away from considering removing the
> postmaster symlink, so it doesn't matter.
Well, per previous discussion, we're removing postmaster.exe from the
win32 installer, because it bloats the distribution wihtout any gain
(remember - windows doesn't have symlinks, so we need a complete copy of
a file that's 4Mb or so). So it would matter there.
> > Actually, a second thought given that I was just bitten by the
> > run-tests-as-admin-doesn't-work - should we use pg_ctl to start it?
> No, not unless you'd like to break pg_regress's ability to
> kill the postmaster --- we need the postmaster to be the
> direct child process.
D'oh, forgot about that. Nevermind about that part then.
//Magnus
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-09-24 16:19:26 | Re: AllocFile debug code |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-09-24 16:16:54 | Re: Buildfarm alarms |