Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > >>> pg_ctl already knows the data directory. If the file is missing, the > >>> server is not running. If the file exists, the first number on the last > >>> line, divided by 1000, is the port number. > > >> That's somewhere between fragile and outright wrong. > > > Please explain why my idea is not an improvement. > > Because it's assuming that those numbers are sysv shmem keys derived in > a particular way. We have platforms on which that is wrong, Windows > being the most obvious example. Reading the shmem key assignment code > closely will suggest to you other ways that this could fail. Not to > mention that people propose getting rid of sysv shmem approximately > every other month, and perhaps someday that will actually happen; > whereupon whatever might get logged in postmaster.pid could be something > completely different.
Yeah, I was afraid of Windows. > If you really think that pulling a port number out of the pid file is an > improvement over what pg_ctl does now, then you need to start by storing > the port number, as such, in the pid file. Not something that might or > might not be related to the port number. But what we have to discuss > before that is whether we mind having a significant postmaster version > dependency in pg_ctl. OK, good point on the version issue. Let's see if we get more complaints before changing this. Thanks. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
