Re: postmaster.exe vs postgres.exe (was: CVS HEAD busted on Windows?)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Dunstan [mailto:andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net]
> Sent: 22 June 2006 14:06
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Tom Lane; Peter Eisentraut; pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] CVS HEAD busted on Windows?
>
>
>
> Dave Page wrote:
>
> >
> >As a sidenote on the postgres/postmaster merge subject
> though - Magnus &
> >I were wondering if Peter's change means we no longer need to ship
> >postmaster.exe and postgres.exe with pgInstaller. Presumably
> we can just
> >use postgres.exe for everything now?
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> 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.

Regards, Dave.