Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> writes:
> Just a thought: if we want to go this way, do we need a new exec call?
> We already control the initial exec in pg_ctl.c.
I'm resistant to assuming the postmaster is launched through pg_ctl.
systemd, for example, might well prefer not to do that, not to
mention all the troglodytes still using 1990s launch scripts.
A question that seems worth debating in this thread is how much
updating the process title is even worth nowadays. It feels like
a hangover from before we had pg_stat_activity and other monitoring
support. So I don't feel a huge need to support it on musl.
The previously-suggested patch to whitelist glibc and variants,
and otherwise fall back to PS_USE_NONE, seems like it might be
the appropriate amount of effort.
regards, tom lane
