Re: pg_upgrade using appname to lock out other users

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
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 01:52:02
Message-ID: 201106160152.p5G1q2o05906@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Stephen Frost wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> * 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..

I think that is going to be very hard to document --- seems easier to
just use -p and -P always.

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

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Florian Pflug 2011-06-16 01:55:47 [WIP] Support for "ANY/ALL(array) op scalar" (Was: Re: Boolean operators without commutators vs. ALL/ANY)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-06-16 01:51:59 Re: Why polecat and colugos are failing to build back branches