On 13.04.23 04:45, Yurii Rashkovskii wrote:
> But getting your agreement is important to get this in; I am willing to
> play along and resolve both (1) and (2) in one go. As for the
> implementation approach for (2), which of the following options would
> you prefer?
>
> a) Document postmaster.pid as it stands today
> b) Expose the port number through pg_ctl (*my personal favorite)
> c) Redesign its content below line 1 to make it extensible (make unnamed
> lines named, for example)
>
> If none of the above options suit you, do you have a strategy you'd prefer?
You could just drop another file into the data directory that just
contains the port number ($PGDATA/port). However, if we ever do
multiple ports, that would still require a change in the format of that
file, so I don't know if that's actually better than a).
I don't think involving pg_ctl is necessary or desirable, since it would
make any future changes like that even more complicated.
