From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <munro(at)ip9(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Cluster name in ps output |
Date: | 2014-05-05 15:37:53 |
Message-ID: | 20140505153753.GB27783@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-05-05 08:03:04 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Craig,
>
> * Craig Ringer (craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> > postgres[5433]: checkpointer process
> >
> > at least as useful. The only time that's not unique is in a BSD jail or
> > lxc container, and in those cases IIRC ps can show you the
> > jail/container anyway.
>
> Uhh, that's not at all true. You can trivially have multiple IPs on a
> box w/o jails or containers (aliased interfaces) and then run PG on the
> default port- which I find to be *far* more convenient than having the
> same IP and a bunch of different ports.
Only that you then need different socket directories. Do you really do
that regularly?
Anyway, I am happy having the cluster_name thingy.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-05-05 15:39:37 | Re: Cluster name in ps output |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-05-05 15:36:20 | Re: Cluster name in ps output |