Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > On 12/18/2010 06:23 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > >> 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. > > > > Wasn't there a proposal to provide an explicit port parameter to pg_ctl, > instead of relying on PGPORT? That would probably be a small advance.
I do not remember that suggestion. I wonder if we should write the port number as the 4th line in postmaster.pid and return in a few major releases and use that. We could fall back and use our existing code if there is no 4th line. -- 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
