Re: [HACKERS] Use of postmaster

2007-10-08 Thread Bruce Momjian

Patch applied.  Thanks.  Your documentation changes can be viewed on our
web site shortly.

---


Brendan Jurd wrote:
 On 10/4/07, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  Brendan Jurd [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
   Now that we've renamed the server binary to postgres, what is the
   status on use of the name postmaster?  Is it now deprecated?  And if
   not, is there any point in keeping it around?
 
  We should replace it by terms like server in contexts where it's
  not actually important to the reader which process is involved,
  but I think Peter's hit most of them already ...
 
 Looks like Peter got the sgml sources pretty well cleaned up, but
 didn't touch the FAQs.
 
 The attached patch replaces some more references to postmaster in
 the FAQs.  Per Tom's guidance, I only replaced those references where
 I felt a distinction between the postmaster and its children wasn't
 important to the reader.
 
 Thanks for your time,
 BJ

[ Attachment, skipping... ]

 
 ---(end of broadcast)---
 TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?

   http://archives.postgresql.org


Re: [HACKERS] Use of postmaster

2007-10-03 Thread Tom Lane
Brendan Jurd [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 Now that we've renamed the server binary to postgres, what is the
 status on use of the name postmaster?  Is it now deprecated?  And if
 not, is there any point in keeping it around?

I'm certainly not for removing the term from either the code or the
internals documentation; when you are trying to refer to the parent
process as opposed to its children, postmaster is convenient,
exact, and justified by umpteen years of history.

We should replace it by terms like server in contexts where it's
not actually important to the reader which process is involved,
but I think Peter's hit most of them already ...

regards, tom lane

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

   http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq


Re: [HACKERS] Use of postmaster

2007-10-03 Thread Ron Mayer
Brendan Jurd wrote:
 Seems it would be best to apply this
 nomenclature consistently, and simply drop the name postmaster from
 use.
 

+1  I agree the term postmaster references in the docs, etc should
go away - with perhaps the exception of one faq that say that
postmaster's a deprecated name in case anyone encounters it
in other web sites or old docs.

PS: Oh it's so hard to resist saying it should be renamed
postmaSQLter.

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at

http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate


Re: [HACKERS] Use of postmaster

2007-10-03 Thread Brendan Jurd
On 10/4/07, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Brendan Jurd [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  Now that we've renamed the server binary to postgres, what is the
  status on use of the name postmaster?  Is it now deprecated?  And if
  not, is there any point in keeping it around?

 We should replace it by terms like server in contexts where it's
 not actually important to the reader which process is involved,
 but I think Peter's hit most of them already ...

Looks like Peter got the sgml sources pretty well cleaned up, but
didn't touch the FAQs.

The attached patch replaces some more references to postmaster in
the FAQs.  Per Tom's guidance, I only replaced those references where
I felt a distinction between the postmaster and its children wasn't
important to the reader.

Thanks for your time,
BJ
Index: doc/FAQ
===
RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgsql/doc/FAQ,v
retrieving revision 1.433
diff -c -r1.433 FAQ
*** doc/FAQ 27 Sep 2007 06:14:46 -  1.433
--- doc/FAQ 3 Oct 2007 23:43:08 -
***
*** 423,432 
 
3.5) Why do I get Sorry, too many clients when trying to connect?

!You have reached the default limit is 100 database sessions. You need
!to increase the postmaster's limit on how many concurrent backend
 processes it can start by changing the max_connections value in
!postgresql.conf and restarting the postmaster.
 
3.6) What is the upgrade process for PostgreSQL?

--- 423,432 
 
3.5) Why do I get Sorry, too many clients when trying to connect?

!You have reached the default limit of 100 database sessions. You need
!to increase the server's limit on how many concurrent backend
 processes it can start by changing the max_connections value in
!postgresql.conf and restarting the server.
 
3.6) What is the upgrade process for PostgreSQL?

***
*** 753,759 

 You probably have run out of virtual memory on your system, or your
 kernel has a low limit for certain resources. Try this before starting
!postmaster:
  ulimit -d 262144
  limit datasize 256m
  
--- 753,759 

 You probably have run out of virtual memory on your system, or your
 kernel has a low limit for certain resources. Try this before starting
!the server:
  ulimit -d 262144
  limit datasize 256m
  
Index: doc/FAQ_AIX
===
RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgsql/doc/FAQ_AIX,v
retrieving revision 1.21
diff -c -r1.21 FAQ_AIX
*** doc/FAQ_AIX 6 Dec 2006 15:45:30 -   1.21
--- doc/FAQ_AIX 3 Oct 2007 23:43:10 -
***
*** 301,307 
  
  
  The overall cause of all these problems is the default bittedness and
! memory model used by the postmaster process.
  
  By default, all binaries built on AIX are 32-bit.  This does not
  depend upon hardware type or kernel in use.  These 32-bit processes
--- 301,307 
  
  
  The overall cause of all these problems is the default bittedness and
! memory model used by the server process.
  
  By default, all binaries built on AIX are 32-bit.  This does not
  depend upon hardware type or kernel in use.  These 32-bit processes
***
*** 327,336 
  build, but not run, 64-bit binaries.  
  
  If a 32-bit binary is desired, set LDR_CNTRL to MAXDATA=0xn000,
! where 1 = n = 8, before starting the postmaster and try different
  values and postgresql.conf settings to find a configuration that works
  satisfactorily.  This use of LDR_CNTRL tells AIX that you want the
! postmaster to have $MAXDATA bytes set aside for the heap, allocated in
  256MB segments.
  
  When you find a workable configuration, ldedit can be used to modify
--- 327,336 
  build, but not run, 64-bit binaries.  
  
  If a 32-bit binary is desired, set LDR_CNTRL to MAXDATA=0xn000,
! where 1 = n = 8, before starting the postgres server and try different
  values and postgresql.conf settings to find a configuration that works
  satisfactorily.  This use of LDR_CNTRL tells AIX that you want the
! server to have $MAXDATA bytes set aside for the heap, allocated in
  256MB segments.
  
  When you find a workable configuration, ldedit can be used to modify
Index: doc/FAQ_CYGWIN
===
RCS file: /projects/cvsroot/pgsql/doc/FAQ_CYGWIN,v
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -c -r1.2 FAQ_CYGWIN
*** doc/FAQ_CYGWIN  15 Oct 2004 16:18:35 -  1.2
--- doc/FAQ_CYGWIN  3 Oct 2007 23:43:10 -
***
*** 30,37 
  
  3a.  Start cygserver for shared memory support.  To do this,
   enter the command /usr/sbin/cygserver .  This program
!  needs to be running anytime you start the PostgreSQL server
!  (postmaster) or initialize a database (initdb).
  
  3b.  Use the initdb