Tom Lane wrote: > Christopher Browne <cbbro...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > >> [ just recommend using a different port number during pg_upgrade ] > > > +1... That seems to have lots of nice properties. > > Yeah, that seems like an appropriate expenditure of effort. It's surely > not bulletproof, since someone could intentionally connect to the actual > port number, but getting to bulletproof is a lot more work than anyone > seems to want to do right now. (And, as Bruce pointed out, no complete > solution would be back-patchable anyway.)
I have researched this and need feedback. Initially I wanted to use a single -p port flag to be used by the old and new clusters. However, pg_upgrade allows --check mode while the old server is running, so we need to allow you to use the current old postmaster port number and a different port number to test the new server. That kills the idea of using a single -p flag, so -p and -P are needed. So, do we allow -p and -P to default to DEF_PORT or PGPORT? For the live server check, that would be nice, but for the other cases we probably need a different port number. This does mean that for the most common use case they will be specifying the same port number for -p and -P, except for a live check. I am guessing we don't want any port number defaults. People are going to think it is odd to have to supply the same port number for -p and -P. We could allow -P to default to -p when not doing a check, but that seems confusing. Do we want -P to only be used in --check mode? That seems confusing too -- that would mean -p is the old server in --check mode, and the old and new server in non-check mode. -- 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
