Re: [HACKERS] Does "postmaster -i"...

2001-10-22 Thread Tom Lane
Thomas Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > A bit more information: an unadorned "-i" fails: I believe this is fixed now. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an

Re: [HACKERS] Does "postmaster -i"...

2001-10-22 Thread Thomas Lockhart
> > A bit more information: an unadorned "-i" fails: > I believe this is fixed now. Seems to be, on my Linux box. Thanks for tracking it down... - Thomas ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http:

Re: [HACKERS] Does "postmaster -i"...

2001-10-19 Thread Thomas Lockhart
... > All three of these cases work just fine for me. Maybe some platform > dependency has snuck in? Hard to see how though. It looks like the > failure is occurring when the postmaster launches the xlog startup > subprocess. The building of the argument list for that subprocess is > fixed and

Re: [HACKERS] Does "postmaster -i"...

2001-10-19 Thread Tom Lane
Thomas Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > A bit more information: an unadorned "-i" fails: > myst$ postmaster -i > postgres: invalid option -- r > But no arguments succeeds: > myst$ postmaster > And multiple arguments succeeds (without damaging the other arguments): > myst$ postmaster -i -p 1

Re: [HACKERS] Does "postmaster -i"...

2001-10-19 Thread Tom Lane
> Ah ... I betcha your platform needs optreset = 1. Fix coming ... I've just committed this. Please update and let me know if it helps. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once w

Re: [HACKERS] Does "postmaster -i"...

2001-10-19 Thread Tom Lane
> We do "optind = 1" > in SSDataBase, but maybe on your platform, we need to do more than that > to point getopt at the correct arglist. Any ideas? Ah ... I betcha your platform needs optreset = 1. Fix coming ... regards, tom lane ---(end of bro

Re: [HACKERS] Does "postmaster -i"...

2001-10-19 Thread Tom Lane
Thomas Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > ... work for you with code built from the cvs tip? I did an update and > build tonight and see > myst$ postmaster -i > postgres: invalid option -- r I just rebuilt from cvs tip, and I don't see any such problem... anyone else?

Re: [HACKERS] Does "postmaster -i"...

2001-10-19 Thread Thomas Lockhart
> ... work for you with code built from the cvs tip? I did an update and > build tonight and see A bit more information: an unadorned "-i" fails: myst$ postmaster -i postgres: invalid option -- r Usage: postgres -boot [-d] [-D datadir] [-F] [-o file] [-x num] dbname -d debug mo

Re: [HACKERS] Does "postmaster -i"...

2001-10-19 Thread Tom Lane
Thomas Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > ... work for you with code built from the cvs tip? I did an update and > build tonight and see > myst$ postmaster -i > postgres: invalid option -- r Hmm. I was fooling with postmaster.c & postgres.c last night. I didn't think I touched parameter par

[HACKERS] Does "postmaster -i"...

2001-10-18 Thread Thomas Lockhart
... work for you with code built from the cvs tip? I did an update and build tonight and see myst$ postmaster -i postgres: invalid option -- r Usage: postgres -boot [-d] [-D datadir] [-F] [-o file] [-x num] dbname -d debug mode -D datadir data directory -F