From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
cc: walther@technowledgy.de, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>,
        Christophe Pettus <xof@thebuild.com>,
        Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>,
        PostgreSQL Bugs <pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org>,
        Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Subject: Re: Regression tests fail with musl libc because libpq.so can't be
 loaded
In-reply-to: 
 <CA+hUKGJAkTZUa9JGr-zsadaqsN=K0P71t-1L2t2=MQFDMc4GuQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3561573.1710771812@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+hUKG+Tq3GK7bPd03N0Eox3YY4-Hjd7qQjo_QZFjdbhTqQGQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+hUKGK9LUq=uygBRFt3vFO1RL+_scsT4+hMkvea_zTttHZ59Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZfolyUQw9z1zxX58@momjian.us>
 <CA+hUKG+Y1D2Bv9v0GbYrhiQ+mhf=6Xj2_viiATnBVFShkfO4VQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <4093813.1710899588@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+hUKGKNK5V8XwwJJZm36s3EUy8V51xu4XiE8=26n=Wq3OGd4A@mail.gmail.com>
 <4095435.1710900216@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+hUKGK2cSx3dveMqBD+E9N=zJ0WawBcbk_jnPqmdWBM0DT_3Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <477fa513-6bf0-456d-8d24-1e22a19df671@technowledgy.de>
 <ZfrmN4WHuJgD95fw@momjian.us>
 <CA+hUKGJzC4rr2Yr=QZyx9W83Wv=TVJHndKF1anjNLNXVUM7TqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <f98cd8de-1c66-491a-8409-e62c09932080@technowledgy.de>
 <36690fcf-f0c8-4d60-af49-6a7efa0e2b14@technowledgy.de>
 <CA+hUKGJAkTZUa9JGr-zsadaqsN=K0P71t-1L2t2=MQFDMc4GuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
	message dated "Fri, 22 Mar 2024 11:42:52 +1300"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <782437.1711062167.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:02:47 -0400
Message-ID: <782438.1711062167@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/782438.1711062167%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> writes:
> Just a thought: if we want to go this way, do we need a new exec call?
>  We already control the initial exec in pg_ctl.c.

I'm resistant to assuming the postmaster is launched through pg_ctl.
systemd, for example, might well prefer not to do that, not to
mention all the troglodytes still using 1990s launch scripts.

A question that seems worth debating in this thread is how much
updating the process title is even worth nowadays.  It feels like
a hangover from before we had pg_stat_activity and other monitoring
support.  So I don't feel a huge need to support it on musl.
The previously-suggested patch to whitelist glibc and variants,
and otherwise fall back to PS_USE_NONE, seems like it might be
the appropriate amount of effort.

			regards, tom lane