Claudio Natoli wrote: > > [Thought I replied to this already] > > > I am now thinking we have to remove pgsql/data/pgsql_tmp > > unconditionally: > > [snip] > > The reason is that if they stop a postmaster that is > > fork/exec, install > > a non-exec postmaster, and restart, we should still clear out that > > directory. I guess what i am saying is that I don't want to tie the > > directory format to the exec() case of the binary. > > Could do. On the other hand, it is a directory for a small number (usually > zero) of tmp files. > > More pertitently, is *anyone* even going to use fork/exec? Whilst there is > no reason (yet) why someone couldn't, other than for development, why would > anyone want to? I've only really been seeing it as a stepping stone to > pushing the Win32 port out...
Agreed. Forget my idea. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
