| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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
| 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? |