Re: [HACKERS] pg_regress starting postmaster
> >> The question here > >> is whether you're ready to break existing custom scripts > for starting > >> the postmaster. Maybe there are none such in the wild on Windows, > >> but I'd be hesitant to assume that. > > > We're guessing there aren't - if there are, those are > scripts calling > > the SCM which in turns starts postgresql. So we're doing it > now - if > > it turns up in beta that people were actually using it from > elsewhere, > > we'll jus thave to put it back. > > OK. Well, there's certainly no harm in making pg_regress > execute postgres instead of postmaster, so I'll change that. Thanks. //Magnus ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] pg_regress starting postmaster
"Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> The question here >> is whether you're ready to break existing custom scripts for >> starting the postmaster. Maybe there are none such in the >> wild on Windows, but I'd be hesitant to assume that. > We're guessing there aren't - if there are, those are scripts calling > the SCM which in turns starts postgresql. So we're doing it now - if it > turns up in beta that people were actually using it from elsewhere, > we'll jus thave to put it back. OK. Well, there's certainly no harm in making pg_regress execute postgres instead of postmaster, so I'll change that. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [HACKERS] pg_regress starting postmaster
> >> No. We're a very long way away from considering removing the > >> postmaster symlink, so it doesn't matter. > > > Well, per previous discussion, we're removing > postmaster.exe from the > > win32 installer, because it bloats the distribution wihtout > any gain > > (remember - windows doesn't have symlinks, so we need a > complete copy > > of a file that's 4Mb or so). So it would matter there. > > Well, you could copy postgres.exe to postmaster.exe during > install, so I don't think you ever did need to bloat the > distribution, only the install footprint. Except you're not supposed to do that, because the MSI auto-healing and things like that won't work... > The question here > is whether you're ready to break existing custom scripts for > starting the postmaster. Maybe there are none such in the > wild on Windows, but I'd be hesitant to assume that. We're guessing there aren't - if there are, those are scripts calling the SCM which in turns starts postgresql. So we're doing it now - if it turns up in beta that people were actually using it from elsewhere, we'll jus thave to put it back. //Magnus ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [HACKERS] pg_regress starting postmaster
"Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> No. We're a very long way away from considering removing the >> postmaster symlink, so it doesn't matter. > Well, per previous discussion, we're removing postmaster.exe from the > win32 installer, because it bloats the distribution wihtout any gain > (remember - windows doesn't have symlinks, so we need a complete copy of > a file that's 4Mb or so). So it would matter there. Well, you could copy postgres.exe to postmaster.exe during install, so I don't think you ever did need to bloat the distribution, only the install footprint. The question here is whether you're ready to break existing custom scripts for starting the postmaster. Maybe there are none such in the wild on Windows, but I'd be hesitant to assume that. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] pg_regress starting postmaster
> > subject says it all. pg_regress starts "postmaster" (pg_regress.c, > > line 1515). Shouldn't this be "postgres" these days? > > No. We're a very long way away from considering removing the > postmaster symlink, so it doesn't matter. Well, per previous discussion, we're removing postmaster.exe from the win32 installer, because it bloats the distribution wihtout any gain (remember - windows doesn't have symlinks, so we need a complete copy of a file that's 4Mb or so). So it would matter there. > > Actually, a second thought given that I was just bitten by the > > run-tests-as-admin-doesn't-work - should we use pg_ctl to start it? > No, not unless you'd like to break pg_regress's ability to > kill the postmaster --- we need the postmaster to be the > direct child process. D'oh, forgot about that. Nevermind about that part then. //Magnus ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [HACKERS] pg_regress starting postmaster
"Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Actually, a second thought given that I was just bitten by the > run-tests-as-admin-doesn't-work - should we use pg_ctl to start it? No, not unless you'd like to break pg_regress's ability to kill the postmaster --- we need the postmaster to be the direct child process. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [HACKERS] pg_regress starting postmaster
"Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > subject says it all. pg_regress starts "postmaster" (pg_regress.c, line > 1515). Shouldn't this be "postgres" these days? No. We're a very long way away from considering removing the postmaster symlink, so it doesn't matter. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] pg_regress starting postmaster
> subject says it all. pg_regress starts "postmaster" > (pg_regress.c, line 1515). Shouldn't this be "postgres" these days? > > (Yes, I'm aware that I wrote that code ;-) But this just occurred to > me..) Actually, a second thought given that I was just bitten by the run-tests-as-admin-doesn't-work - should we use pg_ctl to start it? //Magnus ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
