Re: pg_ctl and port number detection

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> >> I wonder if we should write the port number as the 4th line in
> >> postmaster.pid and return in a few major releases and use that.  We
> >> could fall back and use our existing code if there is no 4th line.
> 
> No.  If it goes in, it should go in as the third line.  The shmem key
> data is private to the server --- we do not want external programs
> assuming anything at all about the private part of postmaster.pid.

OK, so you are suggesting having it as a third value on the third line?

	10231
	/u/pgsql/data
	  5432001  45481984 port_here
	                    ^^^^^^^^^
I like that better because it simplifies the test and limits the
possibility of non-atomic multi-line writes.  For Win32, we would just
have the port number because the line is normally empty.
                      
-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +