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

Re: Upgrading rant.

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Oliver Elphick <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>,mlw <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>,pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Upgrading rant.
Date: 2003-01-05 04:37:59
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> That's a good kluge, but still a kluge: it doesn't completely guarantee
>> that no one else connects while pg_upgrade is trying to do its thing.

> I was thinking about using GUC:

> 	#max_connections = 32
> 	#superuser_reserved_connections = 2

> Set both of those to 1, and you lock out everyone but the super-user. 

You're missing the point: I don't want to lock out everyone but the
super-user, I want to lock out everyone, period.  Superusers are just
as likely to screw up pg_upgrade as anyone else.


$ postmaster -N 1 -c superuser_reserved_connections=1
postmaster: superuser_reserved_connections must be less than max_connections.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Reggie BurnettDate: 2003-01-05 06:23:18
Subject: pgsql oid question
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2003-01-05 04:24:14
Subject: Re: Upgrading rant.

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group