Re: pg_regress starting postmaster - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Magnus Hagander
Subject Re: pg_regress starting postmaster
Date
Msg-id 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCEA0FBDB@algol.sollentuna.se
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_regress starting postmaster  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: pg_regress starting postmaster  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
> > subject says it all. pg_regress starts "postmaster" (pg_regress.c,
> > line 1515). Shouldn't this be "postgres" these days?
>
> No.  We're a very long way away from considering removing the
> postmaster symlink, so it doesn't matter.

Well, per previous discussion, we're removing postmaster.exe from the
win32 installer, because it bloats the distribution wihtout any gain
(remember - windows doesn't have symlinks, so we need a complete copy of
a file that's 4Mb or so). So it would matter there.


> > Actually, a second thought given that I was just bitten by the
> > run-tests-as-admin-doesn't-work - should we use pg_ctl to start it?
> No, not unless you'd like to break pg_regress's ability to
> kill the postmaster --- we need the postmaster to be the
> direct child process.

D'oh, forgot about that. Nevermind about that part then.

//Magnus


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Andrew Dunstan"
Date:
Subject: Re: Buildfarm alarms
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: AllocFile debug code