> -Original Message-
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 23 June 2006 07:09
> To: Tom Lane
> Cc: Dave Page; Andrew Dunstan; Peter Eisentraut;
> pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] postmaster.exe vs postgres.exe (was:
> CV
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Dave Page" 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 w
"Dave Page" 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
> Dave Page wrote:
> > Won't we still need to know if we are called as postmaster or
> > postgres?
>
> Unless the 'postmaster' instance starts all it's sub processes with an
> additional option to tell them they're children (I haven't looked at the
> code yet so I dunno if this is how it's done).
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrew Dunstan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 22 June 2006 14:06
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Tom Lane; Peter Eisentraut; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] CVS HEAD busted on Windows?
>
>
>
> Dave Page wrote:
>
> >
> >As a sidenote on th
