Re: pg_upgrade using appname to lock out other users

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Ross J(dot) Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade using appname to lock out other users
Date: 2011-06-16 04:47:32
Message-ID: 17501.1308199652@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Ross J. Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu> writes:
> As an operations guy, the idea of an upgrade using a random,
> non-repeatable port selection gives me the hebejeebees.

Yeah, I agree. The latest version of the patch doesn't appear to have
any random component to it, though --- it just expects the user to
provide port numbers as switches.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-06-16 04:50:17 Re: Boolean operators without commutators vs. ALL/ANY
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2011-06-16 04:40:36 Re: [WIP] Support for "ANY/ALL(array) op scalar" (Was: Re: Boolean operators without commutators vs. ALL/ANY)