Re: postmaster, but not pg_ctl -i -i
| От | Neil Conway |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: postmaster, but not pg_ctl -i -i |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 87znsbrg2t.fsf@mailbox.samurai.com обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: postmaster, but not pg_ctl -i -i (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: postmaster, but not pg_ctl -i -i
|
| Список | pgsql-general |
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.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@samurai.com> || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: