From: | Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers ML <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade does not completely honor --new-port |
Date: | 2012-10-03 20:00:16 |
Message-ID: | 1349294416.22537.17.camel@lenovo01-laptop03.gunduz.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Wed, 2012-09-26 at 22:06 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I just performed a test upgrade from 9.1 to 9.2, and used
> > --new-port variable. However, the analyze_new_cluster.sh does not
> > include the new port, thus when I run it, it fails. Any chance to
> > add the port number to the script?
>
> Well, the reason people normally use the port number is to do a live
> check, but obviously when the script is created it isn't doing a
> check. I am worried that if I do embed the port number in there, then
> if they change the port after the upgrade, they now can't use the
> script. I assume users would have PGPORT set before running the
> script, no?
They can't use the script in each way -- at least we can make it usable
for one case, I think.
Regards,
--
Devrim GÜNDÜZ
Principal Systems Engineer @ EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
PostgreSQL Danışmanı/Consultant, Red Hat Certified Engineer
Community: devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr
http://www.gunduz.org Twitter: http://twitter.com/devrimgunduz
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2012-10-03 20:12:58 | Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |
Previous Message | Daniel Farina | 2012-10-03 19:42:37 | Re: Hash id in pg_stat_statements |