Re: postmaster, but not pg_ctl -i -i

From: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: aagha(at)bigfoot(dot)com, PostgreSQL General List <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: postmaster, but not pg_ctl -i -i
Date: 2002-11-14 21:34:18
Message-ID: 87znsbrg2t.fsf@mailbox.samurai.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> I think the thing you were missing is that for pg_ctl, -o means "here
> are some switches to give to the postmaster", but for the postmaster
> -o means "here are some switches to give to postgres (ie, the backends
> the postmaster spawns)". So the switches following -o have different
> meanings.

[ tangentially related ... ]

Should we deprecate the switches to the postmaster that are just
alternate ways to specify GUC options (e.g. '-i', '-F', '-B', '-N')?
IMHO, splitting configuration between init scripts and postgresql.conf
only serves to make things more complicated...

Cheers,

Neil

--
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-11-14 21:47:36 Re: postmaster, but not pg_ctl -i -i
Previous Message Neil Conway 2002-11-14 21:28:29 Re: [PERFORM] Upgrade to dual processor machine?