Re: pg_upgrade defaulting to port 25432

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade defaulting to port 25432
Date: 2011-06-27 17:44:34
Message-ID: BANLkTintrtguMcXLfkmn1ZkKSfyTm4i=MQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2011-06-27 17:49:04 Re: pg_upgrade defaulting to port 25432
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2011-06-27 17:39:16 Re: pg_upgrade defaulting to port 25432