Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Not sure why Peter didn't continue working on it.
> I'm still working on the postmaster/postgres merge. But the behavior of
> postmaster -o is not going to be removed. That TODO item might be
> appropriate in a release or three
Tom Lane wrote:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2006-01/msg00239.php
>
> Not sure why Peter didn't continue working on it.
I'm still working on the postmaster/postgres merge. But the behavior of
postmaster -o is not going to be removed. That TODO item might be
appropriate in a r
Andy Chambers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The first item on the todo list is "remove behaviour
> of postmaster -o". Does that simply mean remove the
> option and the associated processing from
> postmaster.c?
No, it means something closer to this:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2
Andy Chambers wrote:
> The first item on the todo list is "remove behaviour
> of postmaster -o". Does that simply mean remove the
> option and the associated processing from
> postmaster.c?
>
> Is anyone working on this?
>
> I've attached a naive patch that does what I've
> described above. It
The first item on the todo list is "remove behaviour
of postmaster -o". Does that simply mean remove the
option and the associated processing from
postmaster.c?
Is anyone working on this?
I've attached a naive patch that does what I've
described above. It compiles and passes the test
script in
