Re: Resurrecting pg_upgrade

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
Cc: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Resurrecting pg_upgrade
Date: 2003-12-17 08:18:04
Message-ID: 26017.1071649084@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> If you want to prevent "accidential" access, start postmaster on a
> non-standard port.

... thus making pg_upgrade subject to all sorts of interesting questions
about whether particular ports get filtered by kernel iptables rules?
This doesn't seem like a really great alternative to me ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-12-17 08:25:03 Re: [PATCHES] Double Backslash example patch
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2003-12-17 07:06:40 Re: [HACKERS] 7.4.1 release notes