Tom Lane wrote: > "Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk> writes: > >>> though - Magnus & > >>> I were wondering if Peter's change means we no longer need to ship > >>> postmaster.exe and postgres.exe with pgInstaller. Presumably > >>> we can just use postgres.exe for everything now? > > >> Won't we still need to know if we are called as postmaster or > >> postgres? > > No. The entire point of the recent changes is that the behavior no > longer depends on the name of the executable, only on the switches. > > In the Unix distributions, the only reason to keep the postmaster > symlink is to avoid breaking old start scripts that invoke "postmaster". > We may be able to drop the symlink eventually, though I see no reason > to be in a hurry about it. > > In the Windows case, I think you'd have to ask if there are any start- > script-equivalents outside your control that you're worried about > breaking. Given the distribution-size penalty you face by having two > copies, obviously you're more motivated to drop the extra .exe sooner > than we'll probably do in the Unix distros.
Can't the installer just copy postgres.exe to postmaster.exe during install? -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
