Re: Antw: Re: Patch for NetWare support

On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 12:54:22PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Ross J. Reedstrom" <reedstrm@rice.edu> writes:
> > On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 12:16:35AM +0200, Ulrich Neumann wrote:
> >> At the moment there isn't ln at all. Just making a copy of the binary
> >> is a problem because the binary name is compiled in the binary
> >> and if you use srgc[0] NetWare reports "postgres" instead of
> >> "postmaster".
>
> > O.K., that just means that instead of 'cp' it'll nead an ugly hack to the
> > Makefiles that links a seperate executable with the second name. That's
> > better than an ugly hack in the mainline executable code, I suppose.
>
> Should we even do that?  What is srgc[0], and why should we care whether
> it can tell the difference between postgres and postmaster?

Depends on how much we want Netware support. I'm assuming srgc[0] is the
Netware equivalent of argv[0], and is being used to determine the name
of the current executable.  (I haven't looked closely at Ulrich's patch,
I must admit)

Ross