On 12/18/2010 06:23 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>> If you really think that pulling a port number out of the pid file is an
>> improvement over what pg_ctl does now, then you need to start by storing
>> the port number, as such, in the pid file. Not something that might or
>> might not be related to the port number. But what we have to discuss
>> before that is whether we mind having a significant postmaster version
>> dependency in pg_ctl.
> OK, good point on the version issue. Let's see if we get more
> complaints before changing this. Thanks.
>
Wasn't there a proposal to provide an explicit port parameter to pg_ctl,
instead of relying on PGPORT? That would probably be a small advance.
cheers
andrew
