Andrew Gierth <and...@tao11.riddles.org.uk> writes:
> "Tom" == Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> Tom> Hmph. Can't we just ignore that error?
> If you ignore the error from setsid(), then you're still a process group
> leader (as you would be after running setsid()), but you're still
> attached to whatever controlling terminal (if any) you were previously
> attached to.
Oh, got it. So actually, the setsid has to be done by what is/will be
the postmaster process.
Although pg_ctl could sneak it in between forking and execing, it seems
like it'd be cleaner to have the postmaster proper do it in response to
a switch that pg_ctl passes it. That avoids depending on the fork/exec
separation, and makes the functionality available for other postmaster
startup mechanisms, and opens the possibility of delaying the detach
to the end of startup.
regards, tom lane
