Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: pg_upgrade does not completely honor --new-port

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade does not completely honor --new-port
Date: 2012-10-03 20:16:55
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Excerpts from Devrim GÜNDÜZ's message of mié oct 03 17:00:16 -0300 2012:
> Hi,
> On Wed, 2012-09-26 at 22:06 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > I just performed a test upgrade from 9.1 to 9.2, and used
> > > --new-port variable. However, the does not
> > > include the new port, thus when I run it, it fails. Any chance to 
> > > add the port number to the script?
> > 
> > Well, the reason people normally use the port number is to do a live
> > check, but obviously when the script is created it isn't doing a
> > check.  I am worried that if I do embed the port number in there, then
> > if they change the port after the upgrade, they now can't use the
> > script.  I assume users would have PGPORT set before running the
> > script, no? 
> They can't use the script in each way -- at least we can make it usable
> for one case, I think.

Well, you could have the script set the port number only if the variable
is not set from the calling shell ... you know,
PGPORT=${PGPORT:=the_other_number} .  That way, if the user wants to
specify a different port, they have to set PGPORT before calling the

Álvaro Herrera      
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2012-10-03 20:20:27
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade does not completely honor --new-port
Previous:From: Michael PaquierDate: 2012-10-03 20:12:58
Subject: Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group