Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F41BB9F9ADD; Wed, 3 Oct 2007 19:45:44 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 86509-07; Wed, 3 Oct 2007 19:45:30 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ADC69F9ADA; Wed, 3 Oct 2007 19:45:35 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l93MjUKc003854; Wed, 3 Oct 2007 18:45:30 -0400 (EDT) To: "Brendan Jurd" cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org, "Bruce Momjian" Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Use of "postmaster" In-reply-to: <37ed240d0710031527r5279b336m9dfc0f48a257be90@mail.gmail.com> References: <37ed240d0710031527r5279b336m9dfc0f48a257be90@mail.gmail.com> Comments: In-reply-to "Brendan Jurd" message dated "Thu, 04 Oct 2007 08:27:50 +1000" Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 18:45:30 -0400 Message-ID: <3853.1191451530@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200710/1 X-Sequence-Number: 4422 "Brendan Jurd" 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