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

Tom Lane wrote:
> "Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk> writes:
> >>> 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?
> 
> No.  The entire point of the recent changes is that the behavior no
> longer depends on the name of the executable, only on the switches.
> 
> In the Unix distributions, the only reason to keep the postmaster
> symlink is to avoid breaking old start scripts that invoke "postmaster".
> We may be able to drop the symlink eventually, though I see no reason
> to be in a hurry about it.
> 
> In the Windows case, I think you'd have to ask if there are any start-
> script-equivalents outside your control that you're worried about
> breaking.  Given the distribution-size penalty you face by having two
> copies, obviously you're more motivated to drop the extra .exe sooner
> than we'll probably do in the Unix distros.

Can't the installer just copy postgres.exe to postmaster.exe during
install?

--  Bruce Momjian   bruce@momjian.us EnterpriseDB    http://www.enterprisedb.com
 + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +