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

From Neil Conway
Subject Re: postmaster, but not pg_ctl -i -i
Date
Msg-id 87znsbrg2t.fsf@mailbox.samurai.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: postmaster, but not pg_ctl -i -i  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: postmaster, but not pg_ctl -i -i  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-general
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> I think the thing you were missing is that for pg_ctl, -o means "here
> are some switches to give to the postmaster", but for the postmaster
> -o means "here are some switches to give to postgres (ie, the backends
> the postmaster spawns)".  So the switches following -o have different
> meanings.

[ 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')?
IMHO, splitting configuration between init scripts and postgresql.conf
only serves to make things more complicated...

Cheers,

Neil

--
Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC

pgsql-general by date:

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