Re: pg_upgrade using appname to lock out other users

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade using appname to lock out other users
Date: 2011-06-15 16:52:30
Message-ID: 13368.1308156750@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mi jun 15 08:45:21 -0400 2011:
>> As a separate issue, I tend to agree with Tom that using psql as part
>> of the pg_upgrade process is a lousy idea and we need a better
>> solution. But let's fix one thing at a time.

> Agreed on both counts ... but ... does this mean that we need a
> different program for programmable tasks as opposed to interactive
> ones? Dealing with standalone backends *is* a pain, that's for sure.

So we fix the interface presented by standalone mode to be less insane.
That way, we can *reduce* the net amount of cruft in the system, rather
than adding more as all these proposals do.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2011-06-15 16:52:39 Re: bad posix_fadvise support causes initdb to exit ungracefully
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-06-15 16:51:29 Re: pg_upgrade using appname to lock out other users