Re: pg_upgrade using appname to lock out other users

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 09:48:12AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 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?

Oh, no! Lost in translation - randomness in this context would be bad.

Heebee-jeebees (usual spelling, I guess)

"(idiom) used to describe a feeling of anxiety, apprehension, depression
or illness"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heebie-jeebies

Ross
--
Ross Reedstrom, Ph.D. reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu
Systems Engineer & Admin, Research Scientist phone: 713-348-6166
Connexions http://cnx.org fax: 713-348-3665
Rice University MS-375, Houston, TX 77005
GPG Key fingerprint = F023 82C8 9B0E 2CC6 0D8E F888 D3AE 810E 88F0 BEDE