When creating a private service for another instance of PostgreSQL I used the
template of postgresql-15.service file installed into /usr/lib/systemd/system
on Fedora 38 provided through the installation for postgres 15.3 from PGDG
repositories.
There I noticed that the line ExecStart still
On 26.01.23 19:36, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
I see a possible problem at line 1,412 of runtime.sgml
This says:
in the postmaster's startup script just before invoking the postmaster.
Depending on how this is read, it could be interpreted to mean
that a "postmaster" binary is invoked. It might be
On Wed, 25 Jan 2023 18:03:25 -0600
"Karl O. Pinc" Buried in
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20230107165942.748ccf4e%40slate.karlpinc.com
> is the one change I see that should be made.
>
> > In doc/src/sgml/ref/allfiles.sgml at line 222 there is an ENTITY
> > defined which references the
On 26.01.23 01:03, Karl O. Pinc wrote:
Buried in
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20230107165942.748ccf4e%40slate.karlpinc.com
is the one change I see that should be made.
In doc/src/sgml/ref/allfiles.sgml at line 222 there is an ENTITY
defined which references the deleted postmaster.sgml
Hello,
Somehow I missed the email changing the status of this back
to "needs review".
Buried in
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20230107165942.748ccf4e%40slate.karlpinc.com
is the one change I see that should be made.
> In doc/src/sgml/ref/allfiles.sgml at line 222 there is an ENTITY
>
Hi,
On Wed, 2023-01-25 at 08:54 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> Apart from your concerns, it appears there is consensus for making
> this change. The RPM packaging scripts can obviously be fixed
> easily for this. Do you have an objection to making this change?
I'm inclined to create the
On 12.01.23 20:11, Devrim Gündüz wrote:
On Thu, 2023-01-12 at 13:35 -0500, Joe Conway wrote:
To be clear, I am completely in agreement with you about removing the
symlink. I just wanted to be sure Devrim was alerted because I knew
he had a strong opinion on this topic ;-)
Red Hat's own
Hi,
On Thu, 2023-01-12 at 13:35 -0500, Joe Conway wrote:
> To be clear, I am completely in agreement with you about removing the
> symlink. I just wanted to be sure Devrim was alerted because I knew
> he had a strong opinion on this topic ;-)
Red Hat's own packages, thus their users may be
On 1/12/23 12:00, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 23.11.22 21:32, Joe Conway wrote:
Yeah. Also, I don't think it's generally too hard to find the parent
process anyway, because at least on my system, the other ones end up
with ps display that looks like "postgres: logical replication
launcher" or
On 23.11.22 21:32, Joe Conway wrote:
Yeah. Also, I don't think it's generally too hard to find the parent
process anyway, because at least on my system, the other ones end up
with ps display that looks like "postgres: logical replication
launcher" or whatever. The main process doesn't set the ps
On Sat, 7 Jan 2023 22:29:35 -0600
"Karl O. Pinc" wrote:
> The only way I could think of to review a patch
> that removes something is to report all the places
> I looked where a reference to the symlink might be.
I forgot to report that I also tried a `make install`
and 'make uninstall`, with
On Sat, 7 Jan 2023 19:56:08 -0600
"Karl O. Pinc" wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jan 2023 18:38:25 -0500
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > "Karl O. Pinc" writes:
> > > This is a review of Peter's 2 patches. I see only 1 small
> > > problem. ...
> > Hmm ... I thought this patch was about getting rid of the
> >
On Sat, 7 Jan 2023 19:33:38 -0500
Joe Conway wrote:
> On 1/7/23 18:38, Tom Lane wrote:
> > "Karl O. Pinc" writes:
> >> This is a review of Peter's 2 patches. I see only 1 small
> >> problem.
The small problem is a reference to a deleted file.
Regards,
Karl
Free Software: "You don't
On Sat, 07 Jan 2023 18:38:25 -0500
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Karl O. Pinc" writes:
> > This is a review of Peter's 2 patches. I see only 1 small problem.
> >
>
> > Looking at the documentation, a "postmaster" in the glossary is
> > defined as the controlling process. This works; it needs to be
>
On 1/7/23 18:38, Tom Lane wrote:
"Karl O. Pinc" writes:
This is a review of Peter's 2 patches. I see only 1 small problem.
Looking at the documentation, a "postmaster" in the glossary is
defined as the controlling process. This works; it needs to be called
something. There is still a
"Karl O. Pinc" writes:
> This is a review of Peter's 2 patches. I see only 1 small problem.
> Looking at the documentation, a "postmaster" in the glossary is
> defined as the controlling process. This works; it needs to be called
> something. There is still a postmaster.pid (etc.) in the data
Hello,
This is a review of Peter's 2 patches. I see only 1 small problem.
+++
Looking at the documentation, a "postmaster" in the glossary is
defined as the controlling process. This works; it needs to be called
something. There is still a postmaster.pid (etc.) in
> On 23 Nov 2022, at 21:10, Robert Haas wrote:
> I don't actually care very much whether we get rid of the postmaster
> symlink or not, but if we aren't going to, we should stop calling it
> deprecated. If 15 years isn't enough time to remove it, what ever will
> be?
+1. If we actively add
Hi,
On 2022-11-23 15:48:04 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund writes:
> > On 2022-11-23 10:07:49 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> On the whole, is it really that hard to add the symlink to the meson build?
>
> > No. Meson has a builtin command for it, just not in the meson version we're
> >
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2022-11-23 10:07:49 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> On the whole, is it really that hard to add the symlink to the meson build?
> No. Meson has a builtin command for it, just not in the meson version we're
> currently requiring. We can create the symlink ourselves instead.
On 11/23/22 15:10, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 2:50 PM Andres Freund wrote:
On 2022-11-23 10:07:49 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Devrim =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=FCnd=FCz?= writes:
> > ...and it helps us to find the "main" process a bit easily.
>
> Hmm, that's a nontrivial point perhaps.
On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 2:50 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2022-11-23 10:07:49 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Devrim =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=FCnd=FCz?= writes:
> > > ...and it helps us to find the "main" process a bit easily.
> >
> > Hmm, that's a nontrivial point perhaps. It's certain that this
> > will
Hi,
On 2022-11-23 10:07:49 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Devrim =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=FCnd=FCz?= writes:
> > ...and it helps us to find the "main" process a bit easily.
>
> Hmm, that's a nontrivial point perhaps. It's certain that this
> will break some other people's start scripts too.
OTOH,
Devrim =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=FCnd=FCz?= writes:
> ...and it helps us to find the "main" process a bit easily.
Hmm, that's a nontrivial point perhaps. It's certain that this
will break some other people's start scripts too. On the whole,
is it really that hard to add the symlink to the meson build?
Hi,
On Wed, 2022-11-23 at 09:18 -0500, Joe Conway wrote:
> I am a big +1 on removing the symlink, however it is worth pointing
> out
> that the PGDG RPMs still use the symlink in the included systemd
> service
> file:
>
> 8<--
> ExecStart=/usr/pgsql-15/bin/postmaster -D ${PGDATA}
On 11/23/22 02:52, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
A little while ago we discussed briefly over in the meson thread whether
we could remove the postmaster symlink [0]. The meson build system
currently does not install a postmaster symlink. (AFAICT, the MSVC
build system does not either.) So if we
A little while ago we discussed briefly over in the meson thread whether
we could remove the postmaster symlink [0]. The meson build system
currently does not install a postmaster symlink. (AFAICT, the MSVC
build system does not either.) So if we want to elevate the meson build
system, we
27 matches
Mail list logo
