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 thr
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 mat
pgd?
Gustavo.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
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.
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 i
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
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 exe
