On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 04:17:50PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of vie feb 03 15:52:29 -0300 2012: > > > Actually, thinking more about this, the old pg_upgrade didn't use pg_ctl > > wait/-w mode, but rather kept trying to connect until the server was up. > > Once pg_ctl -w worked in more cases in PG 9.1, the new pg_upgrade > > started using pg_ctl -w, but I didn't consider that we were unable to > > fix pg_ctl -w for non-standard settings in back branches. > > Hm, so what was wrong with just keep trying to connect? Surely it's not > optimal, but if it's more robust than the alternative, maybe it's > preferrable.
Well, it didn't always work. What we used to do, and still do, is to pass the port number in via -o '-p 4444', but that didn't handle the socket location, which is the case for the bug reporter. Now that I think of it, we might not have a regression from 9.0 --- my big point is that the socket location, while fixed in 9.1, didn't fix it in back branches, and therefore pg_upgrade doesn't handle them for old pre-9.1 clusters. I was unclear why the original pg_upgrade code used a separate connection loop instead of pg_ctl -w, but when I found how broken pg_ctl -w was, I fixed pg_ctl so at least going forward, it works for all use-cases. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
