From: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Ross J(dot) Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade using appname to lock out other users |
Date: | 2011-06-16 15:15:50 |
Message-ID: | BANLkTimcmTL8pDEPDgNyem8PogrjRjrDGQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> "Ross J. Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)rice(dot)edu> writes:
>> > As an operations guy, the idea of an upgrade using a random,
>> > non-repeatable port selection gives me the hebejeebees.
>>
>> Yeah, I agree. The latest version of the patch doesn't appear to have
>> any random component to it, though --- it just expects the user to
>> provide port numbers as switches.
>
> Oh, you wanted pg_upgrade to pick a random port number? I can do that,
> but how would it check to see it is unused?
If no port is specified, that *might* be a reasonable behavior, but it
certainly throws in a dose of the wrong sort of nondeterminism, hence
heebie-jeebies...
--
When confronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the
question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?"
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alexey Klyukin | 2011-06-16 15:23:56 | Re: proposal: a validator for configuration files |
Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2011-06-16 15:04:04 | Re: Patch - Debug builds without optimization |