Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On ons, 2011-06-15 at 13:35 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I now believe we are overthinking all this. pg_upgrade has always > > supported specification of a port number. Why not just tell users to > > specify an unused port number > 1023, and not to use the default > > value? Both old and new clusters will happily run on any specified > > port number during the upgrade. This allows the lockout to work for > > both old and new clusters, which is better than enhancing -b because > > that will only be for > 9.1 servers. > > On non-Windows servers you could get this even safer by disabling the > TCP/IP socket altogether, and placing the Unix-domain socket in a > private temporary directory. The "port" wouldn't actually matter then.
Yes, it would be nice to just create the socket in the current directory. The fact it doesn't work on Windows would cause our docs to have to differ for Windows, which seems unfortunate. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
