Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> On 04/09/10 22:41, Tom Lane wrote:
>> So we don't need a version check unless you're worried about somebody
>> trying to run Postgres 9.x on OS X 10.2 (which was retired in 2003).
> What happens if someone does? Crash, or just wonky ps output? If it's
> the latter, s
On 04/09/10 22:41, Tom Lane wrote:
I wrote:
I tried this on a PPC Mac running 10.4.11, which is the oldest Mac OS
I have handy at the moment. It worked fine. The existing coding in
ps_status.c dates from late 2001, which means that it was first tested
against OS X 10.1, and most likely we have
I wrote:
> I tried this on a PPC Mac running 10.4.11, which is the oldest Mac OS
> I have handy at the moment. It worked fine. The existing coding in
> ps_status.c dates from late 2001, which means that it was first tested
> against OS X 10.1, and most likely we have not rechecked the question
>
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> Alexey Klyukin writes:
>>> I always wondered why ps ax|grep postgres shows several extra blank lines
>>> after the process name, i.e.
>
>> AFAIR it's always done that on OSX. I thought we'd tried the '\0'
>> padding way back when and
I wrote:
> Alexey Klyukin writes:
>> I always wondered why ps ax|grep postgres shows several extra blank lines
>> after the process name, i.e.
> AFAIR it's always done that on OSX. I thought we'd tried the '\0'
> padding way back when and it didn't work nicely, but maybe Apple fixed
> that.
I t
Alexey Klyukin writes:
> I always wondered why ps ax|grep postgres shows several extra blank lines
> after the process name, i.e.
AFAIR it's always done that on OSX. I thought we'd tried the '\0'
padding way back when and it didn't work nicely, but maybe Apple fixed
that.
Hi,
I always wondered why ps ax|grep postgres shows several extra blank lines
after the process name, i.e.
972 ?? Ss 0:00.69 postgres: writer process
973 ?? Ss 0:00.51 postgres: wal writer process
(I put newlines instead of spaces there). By looking into the code I've found
