| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Ross J(dot) Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, 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 13:48:12 |
| Message-ID: | 201106161348.p5GDmCt29837@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> "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.
Oh, you wanted pg_upgrade to pick a random port number? I can do that,
but how would it check to see it is unused?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Smith | 2011-06-16 13:48:36 | Re: procpid? |
| Previous Message | Leonardo Francalanci | 2011-06-16 13:40:09 | Re: use less space in xl_xact_commit patch |