On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 09:53, Tom Lane wrote:
> Oliver Elphick <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
> > On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 02:17, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> There isn't any simple way to lock *everyone* out of the DB and still
> >> allow pg_upgrade to connect via the postmaster, and even if there were,
> >> the DBA could too easily forget to do it.
> > I tackled this issue in the Debian upgrade scripts.
> > I close the running postmaster and open a new postmaster using a
> > different port, so that normal connection attempts will fail because
> > there is no postmaster running on the normal port.
> That's a good kluge, but still a kluge: it doesn't completely guarantee
> that no one else connects while pg_upgrade is trying to do its thing.
> I am also concerned about the consequences of automatic background
> activities. Even the periodic auto-CHECKPOINT done by current code
> is not obviously safe to run behind pg_upgrade's back (it does make
> WAL entries). And the auto-VACUUM that we are currently thinking of
> is even less obviously safe. I think that someday, running pg_upgrade
> standalone will become *necessary*, not just a good safety feature.
> regards, tom lane
I thought there was talk of adding a "single user"/admin only mode.
That is, where only the administrator can connect to the database.
Greg Copeland <greg(at)copelandconsulting(dot)net>
Copeland Computer Consulting
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Dan Langille||Date: 2003-01-04 20:56:41|
|Subject: Re: [GENERAL] v7.3.1 Bundled and Released ... |
|Previous:||From: Greg Copeland||Date: 2003-01-04 18:21:20|
|Subject: Re: Threads|