Re: [HACKERS] postmaster.exe vs postgres.exe (was: CVS HEAD busted on Windows?)
> -Original Message- > From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 23 June 2006 07:09 > To: Tom Lane > Cc: Dave Page; Andrew Dunstan; Peter Eisentraut; > pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] postmaster.exe vs postgres.exe (was: > CVS HEAD busted on Windows?) > > Can't the installer just copy postgres.exe to postmaster.exe during > install? That's not something that Windows Installer does - we'd have to write some code to do it at the end of the installation, then call it as a custom action. Actually it'd probably be fairly trivial, but I'm having a hard time imagining why anyone would be relying on the existence of postmaster.exe anyway, unless they were packaging their own release in which case it's their problem anyhoo. Regards, Dave. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] postmaster.exe vs postgres.exe (was: CVS HEAD busted on Windows?)
"Dave Page" writes: >>> though - Magnus & >>> I were wondering if Peter's change means we no longer need to ship >>> postmaster.exe and postgres.exe with pgInstaller. Presumably >>> we can just use postgres.exe for everything now? >> Won't we still need to know if we are called as postmaster or >> postgres? No. The entire point of the recent changes is that the behavior no longer depends on the name of the executable, only on the switches. In the Unix distributions, the only reason to keep the postmaster symlink is to avoid breaking old start scripts that invoke "postmaster". We may be able to drop the symlink eventually, though I see no reason to be in a hurry about it. In the Windows case, I think you'd have to ask if there are any start- script-equivalents outside your control that you're worried about breaking. Given the distribution-size penalty you face by having two copies, obviously you're more motivated to drop the extra .exe sooner than we'll probably do in the Unix distros. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [HACKERS] postmaster.exe vs postgres.exe (was: CVS HEAD busted on Windows?)
> Dave Page wrote: > > Won't we still need to know if we are called as postmaster or > > postgres? > > Unless the 'postmaster' instance starts all it's sub processes with an > additional option to tell them they're children (I haven't looked at the > code yet so I dunno if this is how it's done). > > For those that are unaware, because Windows doesn't support symlinks, we > currently ship two copies of the binary. We could save 3.2MB > (uncompressed, 8.1.4) if we could lose one of them. I look at that structure was successful by huge backend.dll at 8.2. In spite of not arranging it yet, it looks great. However, Several K-Bytes are still used vainly. But, I am not investigating which the is still good. Regards, Hiroshi Saito ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [HACKERS] postmaster.exe vs postgres.exe (was: CVS HEAD busted on Windows?)
> -Original Message- > From: Andrew Dunstan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 22 June 2006 14:06 > To: Dave Page > Cc: Tom Lane; Peter Eisentraut; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] CVS HEAD busted on Windows? > > > > Dave Page wrote: > > > > >As a sidenote on the postgres/postmaster merge subject > though - Magnus & > >I were wondering if Peter's change means we no longer need to ship > >postmaster.exe and postgres.exe with pgInstaller. Presumably > we can just > >use postgres.exe for everything now? > > > > > > > > > > Won't we still need to know if we are called as postmaster or > postgres? Unless the 'postmaster' instance starts all it's sub processes with an additional option to tell them they're children (I haven't looked at the code yet so I dunno if this is how it's done). For those that are unaware, because Windows doesn't support symlinks, we currently ship two copies of the binary. We could save 3.2MB (uncompressed, 8.1.4) if we could lose one of them. Regards, Dave. ---(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
