From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Brendan Jurd <direvus@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce@momjian.us>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Use of "postmaster"
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 18:45:30 -0400
Message-ID: <3853.1191451530@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <37ed240d0710031527r5279b336m9dfc0f48a257be90@mail.gmail.com>
References: <37ed240d0710031527r5279b336m9dfc0f48a257be90@mail.gmail.com>
"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
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, direvus@gmail.com, bruce@momjian.us
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Use of "postmaster"
In-Reply-To: <3853.1191451530@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox