I don't want to over-engineer this. Propogating -D into postmaster
makes sense, but grabbing PGDATA doesn't to me.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Brown wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I see your point --- pg_ctl does a PGDATA trick when passed -D:
> >
> > -D)
> > shift
> > # pass environment into new postmaster
> > PGDATA="$1"
> > export PGDATA
> >
> > It should pass -D just like it was given.
>
> Yes, exactly.
>
> Now, the more interesting question in my mind is: if pg_ctl isn't
> passed -D but inherits PGDATA, should it nonetheless pass -D
> explicitly to the postmaster? We can make it do that, and it would
> have the benefit of making transparent what would otherwise be opaque.
>
> I'm inclined to answer "yes" to that question, but only because
> someone who *really* doesn't want the postmaster to show up with a -D
> argument in "ps" can start the postmaster directly without using
> pg_ctl at all. Tom made a good argument for sometimes wanting to keep
> the ps output clean, but it's not clear to me that it should
> necessarily apply to pg_ctl.
>
> But you guys might have a different perspective on that. :-)
>
>
>
> --
> Kevin Brown kevin@sysexperts.com
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
