Re: postmaster.exe vs postgres.exe (was: CVS HEAD busted on Windows?)
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: postmaster.exe vs postgres.exe (was: CVS HEAD busted on Windows?) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 23174.1150984344@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: postmaster.exe vs postgres.exe (was: CVS HEAD busted on Windows?) ("Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>) |
Ответы |
Re: postmaster.exe vs postgres.exe (was: CVS HEAD busted
Re: postmaster.exe vs postgres.exe (was: CVS HEAD busted on |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
"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. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: