Re: postmaster, but not pg_ctl -i -i - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: postmaster, but not pg_ctl -i -i
Date
Msg-id 22334.1037310456@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: postmaster, but not pg_ctl -i -i  (Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>)
List pgsql-general
Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
> [ tangentially related ... ]

> Should we deprecate the switches to the postmaster that are just
> alternate ways to specify GUC options (e.g. '-i', '-F', '-B', '-N')?

I don't see a need for that.  If people are using the switches, it's
because they find it more convenient to do it that way.

Here's an example of a slightly unusual use of the PM command-line
switches: I make a habit of running the postmaster with an explicit -p
(port) switch.  This is because I usually have a bunch of postmasters
of different versions on my development machine:

$ ps -ef | grep postmaster
postgres 28784     1  0  Oct  1  ?         0:23 postmaster -p 5472
postgres   932     1  0  Sep 24  ?         0:00 /opt/postgres/bin/postmaster -p 5432
postgres 19376     1  0 14:48:01 ttyp4     0:00 postmaster -p 5473
postgres 15612     1  0  Oct  1  ?         0:00 postmaster -p 5471
postgres 11279     1  0 13:56:35 ttyp4     0:00 postmaster
$

It's easy for me to tell which is which in a "ps" listing.  Without the
switch I'd have to find some other way to tell 'em apart.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Neil Conway
Date:
Subject: Re: postmaster, but not pg_ctl -i -i
Next
From: "Josh Berkus"
Date:
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Upgrade to dual processor machine?