Re: pg_upgrade defaulting to port 25432

\Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> > Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 10:33 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> >> <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> >> > Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of vie jun 24 22:22:55 -0400 2011:
> >> >> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > You want the environment variable support removed?
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't. ?It's production usefulness is questionable, but it's quite
> >> >> handy for testing IMO.
> >> >
> >> > If that's what you want, I think being able to read a file (whose
> >> > filename you pass with a switch to pg_upgrade) with a bunch of settings
> >> > is even more convenient. ?Heck, maybe it's more convenient for the user
> >> > too.
> >>
> >> If someone wants to do the work, I'm all in favor. ?But I don't feel
> >> that we should insist that Bruce do it.
> >
> > Is there agreement to remove all pg_upgrade-specific environment
> > variables?
>
> I'm not in favor of that unless we have a workable replacement for them.

OK, fair enough. Should I apply my ports patch to Postgres 9.2?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +