From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Yurii Rashkovskii <yrashk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Allow Postgres to pick an unused port to listen |
Date: | 2023-04-12 17:51:40 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob5BHPRhCZuZupKeacxMnvxHnuHAPXcA8XNj2KiPFDsKQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 1:31 PM Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
> I don't object to using the pid file as the mechanism -- but it is a
> bit of an awkward UI for shell scripting. I imagine it would be handy
> if pg_ctl had an option to just print the port number so you could get
> it with a simple port=`pg_ctl -D <dir> status-port`
That's not a bad idea, and would provide some additional isolation to
reduce direct dependency on the PID file format.
However, awk 'NR==4' $PGDATA/postmaster.pid is hardly insanity. If it
can be done with a 5-character awk script, it's not too hard. The kind
of thing you're talking about is much more important with things like
pg_control or postgresql.conf that have much more complicated formats.
The format of the PID file is intentionally simple. But that's not to
say that I'm objecting.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker | 2023-04-12 17:53:15 | Re: Tab completion for AT TIME ZONE |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2023-04-12 17:31:09 | Re: [PATCH] Allow Postgres to pick an unused port to listen |