Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] postmaster/postgres merge for testing
On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 05:17, Gustavo Tonini wrote:
pgd?
or taking a page out of apache's book, databased ?
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] postmaster/postgres merge for testing
On 1/23/06, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. +1 for 'postgres'. -- marko ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] postmaster/postgres merge for testing
pgd? Gustavo. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] postmaster/postgres merge for testing
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? +1 postgres (having the executable name matching the default os superuser and database accounts seems logical). ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] postmaster/postgres merge for testing
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? regards, tom lane ---(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
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] postmaster/postgres merge for testing
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
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] postmaster/postgres merge for testing
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 11:51:36AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote: 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. Or postgresql if we want to be consistent... /nitpick -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.comwork: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
