I don't want to over-engineer this. Propogating -D into postmaster makes sense, but grabbing PGDATA doesn't to me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Brown wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I see your point --- pg_ctl does a PGDATA trick when passed -D: > > > > -D) > > shift > > # pass environment into new postmaster > > PGDATA="$1" > > export PGDATA > > > > It should pass -D just like it was given. > > Yes, exactly. > > Now, the more interesting question in my mind is: if pg_ctl isn't > passed -D but inherits PGDATA, should it nonetheless pass -D > explicitly to the postmaster? We can make it do that, and it would > have the benefit of making transparent what would otherwise be opaque. > > I'm inclined to answer "yes" to that question, but only because > someone who *really* doesn't want the postmaster to show up with a -D > argument in "ps" can start the postmaster directly without using > pg_ctl at all. Tom made a good argument for sometimes wanting to keep > the ps output clean, but it's not clear to me that it should > necessarily apply to pg_ctl. > > But you guys might have a different perspective on that. :-) > > > > -- > Kevin Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
