Thread: Use of "postmaster"
Now that we've renamed the server binary to "postgres", what is the status on use of the name "postmaster"? Is it now deprecated? And if not, is there any point in keeping it around? I've come across the occasional reference to "postmaster" in the FAQs and I was thinking that this would confuse newer users. Anyone getting started with postgres since the rename probably won't know what a "postmaster" is. Phrases like "check whether the postmaster is running" won't make any sense. The manual (16.3 Starting the Database Server, and 1.2 Architectural Fundamentals) now seems quite clear that "the database server program is called postgres". Seems it would be best to apply this nomenclature consistently, and simply drop the name "postmaster" from use. Comments? Regards, BJ
"Brendan Jurd" <direvus@gmail.com> writes:
> Now that we've renamed the server binary to "postgres", what is the
> status on use of the name "postmaster"? Is it now deprecated? And if
> not, is there any point in keeping it around?
I'm certainly not for removing the term from either the code or the
internals documentation; when you are trying to refer to the parent
process as opposed to its children, "postmaster" is convenient,
exact, and justified by umpteen years of history.
We should replace it by terms like "server" in contexts where it's
not actually important to the reader which process is involved,
but I think Peter's hit most of them already ...
regards, tom lane
Brendan Jurd wrote: > Seems it would be best to apply this > nomenclature consistently, and simply drop the name "postmaster" from > use. > +1 I agree the term postmaster references in the docs, etc should go away - with perhaps the exception of one faq that say that postmaster's a deprecated name in case anyone encounters it in other web sites or old docs. PS: Oh it's so hard to resist saying it should be renamed "postmaSQLter".
On 10/4/07, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > "Brendan Jurd" <direvus@gmail.com> writes: > > Now that we've renamed the server binary to "postgres", what is the > > status on use of the name "postmaster"? Is it now deprecated? And if > > not, is there any point in keeping it around? > > We should replace it by terms like "server" in contexts where it's > not actually important to the reader which process is involved, > but I think Peter's hit most of them already ... Looks like Peter got the sgml sources pretty well cleaned up, but didn't touch the FAQs. The attached patch replaces some more references to "postmaster" in the FAQs. Per Tom's guidance, I only replaced those references where I felt a distinction between the postmaster and its children wasn't important to the reader. Thanks for your time, BJ
Patch applied. Thanks. Your documentation changes can be viewed on our web site shortly. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brendan Jurd wrote: > On 10/4/07, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > "Brendan Jurd" <direvus@gmail.com> writes: > > > Now that we've renamed the server binary to "postgres", what is the > > > status on use of the name "postmaster"? Is it now deprecated? And if > > > not, is there any point in keeping it around? > > > > We should replace it by terms like "server" in contexts where it's > > not actually important to the reader which process is involved, > > but I think Peter's hit most of them already ... > > Looks like Peter got the sgml sources pretty well cleaned up, but > didn't touch the FAQs. > > The attached patch replaces some more references to "postmaster" in > the FAQs. Per Tom's guidance, I only replaced those references where > I felt a distinction between the postmaster and its children wasn't > important to the reader. > > Thanks for your time, > BJ [ Attachment, skipping... ] > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +