On January 1, 2017 6:30:21 AM EST, Raphael Hertzog <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi Scott, > >On Fri, 30 Dec 2016, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> Since you provided the original postfix service file, would you >please review >> the proposed change in the cc'ed bug: >> >> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=849584 >> >> and let us know what you think about the change. > >It looks like Bartosz did not notice that the reason why no process >were >tracked behind the "postfix" unit is because we support multiple >postfix >instances and the default instance is named "postfix@-" so he should >do "systemctl status postfix@-" to see his running processes. > >The "postfix" service file is just a way to do the reload/restart >actions >on all the existing instances. > >IMO the bug should just be closed. Or maybe there's a way to improve >the documentation so that others do not do the same mistake, but you >should not change the postfix.service file as requested. >
I've been looking at this some more and while I agree we need to do something to control multiple instances, I think for single instance having to use postfix@- is both surprising and suboptimal. If you have an input on how we can use postfix for the primary instance and, maybe something like postfix-multi to perform the function that the postfix service is performing now, I'd love to hear it. Having studied the current design, I think it's over complicated for single instance usage, which I believe is the predominant use case . Scott K
