Tom Lane wrote:
>Jeff Bowden <jlb@houseofdistraction.com> writes:
>
>
>>What about the notion of running postmaster on-demand as the user?
>>
>>
>
>Possibly. You'd have to think carefully about what conditions the
>postmaster should be shut down under, and especially what conditions
>it should NOT be shut down under --- eg, a kill to the parent client
>application shouldn't cause an ungraceful postmaster exit. It could
>be tricky to get the signal handling right, especially under shells that
>try to deliver signals to all children of a process being signaled.
>On the whole I suspect it'd be easier just to leave the postmaster
>running in the background...
>
>
Details, details.... :-)
>>Oh yeah, that brings me to another question. I was looking at the
>>postmaster command-line switches and I couldn't find any that would
>>allow me to point it at an arbitrary config file
>>
>>
>
>The config files all live in $PGDATA and so are determined by the -D
>switch. There was some talk of changing this, awhile back, but it
>foundered on lack of consensus about exactly what to do instead.
>
>
As long as it can be done.
