Re: pg_upgrade using appname to lock out other users

Stephen Frost wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> Bruce,
>
> * Bruce Momjian (bruce(at)momjian(dot)us) wrote:
> > I have researched this and need feedback.
>
> In general, I like the whole idea of using random/special ports for the
> duration of the upgrade. I agree that we need to keep the ability to
> check the existing clusters. My gut feeling is this: keep the existing
> port options just as they are, so --check works just fine, etc. Use
> *only* long-options for the "ports to use during the actual upgrade" and
> discourage their use- we want people to let a random couple of ports be
> used during the upgrade to minimize the risk of someone connecting to
> one of the systems. Obvioulsy, there may be special cases where that's
> not an option, but I don't think we need to make it easy nor do I think
> we need to have a short option for it.

Having long options mean different than short options seems very
confusing.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +