| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade using appname to lock out other users |
| Date: | 2011-06-15 19:59:25 |
| Message-ID: | 1308167965.30599.1.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On ons, 2011-06-15 at 13:35 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I now believe we are overthinking all this. pg_upgrade has always
> supported specification of a port number. Why not just tell users to
> specify an unused port number > 1023, and not to use the default
> value? Both old and new clusters will happily run on any specified
> port number during the upgrade. This allows the lockout to work for
> both old and new clusters, which is better than enhancing -b because
> that will only be for > 9.1 servers.
On non-Windows servers you could get this even safer by disabling the
TCP/IP socket altogether, and placing the Unix-domain socket in a
private temporary directory. The "port" wouldn't actually matter then.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2011-06-15 20:13:59 | flexible array members |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-06-15 19:29:57 | Re: Strict Set Returning Functions |