"MauMau" <maumau...@gmail.com> writes:
> From: "Tom Lane" <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>
>> I'm still not clear on why we can't just use the port number.
> To use port, we have to tell the location of $PGDATA to regsvr32.exe.
[ scratches head... ] Exactly which of the other proposals *doesn't*
require that? Certainly anything that involves parsing settings out
of postgresql.conf will.
A more significant problem, probably, is that even knowing $PGDATA doesn't
tell you the port number with certainty, since the postmaster might end
up taking the port number from some other source than postgresql.conf
(command line, PGPORT environment, ...). We used to require that pg_ctl
know the port accurately, and it was a big step forward in reliability
when we got rid of that; so maybe going back to that is not such a good
idea.
I note though that pg_ctl does still need to know accurately where $PGDATA
is. Is there any particular length limit on event source names? Maybe
the full path to $PGDATA could be used instead of the port number.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
