On 12/18/2010 06:23 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
If you really think that pulling a port number out of the pid file is an
improvement over what pg_ctl does now, then you need to start by storing
the port number, as such, in the pid file. Not something that might or
might not be related to the port number. But what we have to discuss
before that is whether we mind having a significant postmaster version
dependency in pg_ctl.
OK, good point on the version issue. Let's see if we get more
complaints before changing this. Thanks.
Wasn't there a proposal to provide an explicit port parameter to pg_ctl,
instead of relying on PGPORT? That would probably be a small advance.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
