> -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
Tom Lane wrote:
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.
Oh. My mistake. That sounds good.
cheers
andrew
---
"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
