Re: pg_upgrade using appname to lock out other users

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade using appname to lock out other users
Date: 2011-06-22 03:10:53
Message-ID: 16662.1308712253@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Discussion seems to have ended on this thread without a clear direction.

I still think the right thing is to just use a non-default port number.
That gets 90% of the benefit for 10% of the work of any other approach
(except for the ones for which the ratio is even worse).

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2011-06-22 03:11:41 Re: [v9.2] DROP Reworks Part.0 - 'missing_ok' support of get_object_address
Previous Message Robert Haas 2011-06-22 03:05:57 pgsql: Make the visibility map crash-safe.