Re: pg_upgrade using appname to lock out other users

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(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 03:25:21
Message-ID: 201106220325.p5M3PLg20516@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> 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).

I agree.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fujii Masao 2011-06-22 03:54:20 Re: Latch implementation that wakes on postmaster death on both win32 and Unix
Previous Message Greg Sabino Mullane 2011-06-22 03:24:34 Re: Indication of db-shared tables