On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 11:13 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Attached is a patch that merges postmaster and postgres into just a > > postmaster command. > > I had some second thoughts about this, specifically about which > direction do we really want to go in. With this patch, it no longer > really matters what the executable file is named, right? We were both > implicitly assuming that the name should end up being "postmaster", > but I think there's a good case to be made that the right thing to do > is to migrate in the direction of having just one executable named > "postgres". We've seen complaints before that having a daemon named > "postmaster" confuses newbies into thinking it's got something to do > with mail. And it's already the case that the child processes all call > themselves "postgres", which will become even more confusing if there is > no longer any executable named "postgres". > > If we went in this direction we'd have to keep the installed > postmaster->postgres symlink for awhile to avoid breaking existing > start scripts, but it could be deprecated and then removed in a few > releases. > > Thoughts?
This is clearly better, IMNSHO. I did wonder about postgresqld or postgresd or some such - many server programs end in "d" or ".d" to distinguish them from client programs. But probably just "postgres" is best. cheers andrew ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match