| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Rafael Martinez Guerrero <r(dot)m(dot)guerrero(at)usit(dot)uio(dot)no> |
| Cc: | Moises Alberto Lindo Gutarra <mlindo(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dan The Man <bitsandbytes88(at)hotmail(dot)com>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: upgrade from 8.0.3 to 8.1.0 |
| Date: | 2005-11-09 16:00:29 |
| Message-ID: | 15950.1131552029@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Rafael Martinez Guerrero <r(dot)m(dot)guerrero(at)usit(dot)uio(dot)no> writes:
> On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 18:23, Moises Alberto Lindo Gutarra wrote:
>> you only need make postgres 8.1.0 run using another port, example 5438
> Or another IP/address (listen_addresses) and the same port 5432. ;)
No, because both postmasters will try to open /tmp/.s.PGSQL.5432 ...
You could maybe make the same-port trick work if you chroot one or both
postmasters, or relocate the socket directory to someplace besides /tmp,
but either of those approaches will make life difficult for clients
trying to make local non-TCP connections. On the whole, separate port
number is the path of least resistance in almost all cases.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthew T. O'Connor | 2005-11-09 16:47:26 | Re: autovacuum daemon question... |
| Previous Message | Joe Maldonado | 2005-11-09 15:20:33 | autovacuum daemon question... |