Re: pg_upgrade using appname to lock out other users

From: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: 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 using appname to lock out other users
Date: 2011-06-16 01:33:02
Message-ID: 20110616013302.GB32313@tamriel.snowman.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

* Bruce Momjian (bruce(at)momjian(dot)us) wrote:
> Having long options mean different than short options seems very
> confusing.

Err, that wasn't what I was proposing.. Just having:
--old-port-during-upgrade

and similar would have to be used if they want to specify the ports to
be used during the upgrade proces...

We just wouldn't have a short-option for that option, since we
discourage it..

Thanks,

Stephen

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-06-16 01:51:59 Re: Why polecat and colugos are failing to build back branches
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2011-06-16 01:29:18 Re: pg_upgrade using appname to lock out other users