On 1/23/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Attached is a patch that merges postmaster and postgres into just a > > postmaster command. > > I had some second thoughts about this, specifically about which > direction do we really want to go in. With this patch, it no longer > really matters what the executable file is named, right? We were both > implicitly assuming that the name should end up being "postmaster", > but I think there's a good case to be made that the right thing to do > is to migrate in the direction of having just one executable named > "postgres". We've seen complaints before that having a daemon named > "postmaster" confuses newbies into thinking it's got something to do > with mail. And it's already the case that the child processes all call > themselves "postgres", which will become even more confusing if there is > no longer any executable named "postgres".
+1 for 'postgres'. -- marko ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org