Re: BUG #6347: Reopening bug #6085

On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 04:17:50PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of vie feb 03 15:52:29 -0300 2012:
>
> > Actually, thinking more about this, the old pg_upgrade didn't use pg_ctl
> > wait/-w mode, but rather kept trying to connect until the server was up.
> > Once pg_ctl -w worked in more cases in PG 9.1, the new pg_upgrade
> > started using pg_ctl -w, but I didn't consider that we were unable to
> > fix pg_ctl -w for non-standard settings in back branches.
>
> Hm, so what was wrong with just keep trying to connect? Surely it's not
> optimal, but if it's more robust than the alternative, maybe it's
> preferrable.

Well, it didn't always work. What we used to do, and still do, is to
pass the port number in via -o '-p 4444', but that didn't handle the
socket location, which is the case for the bug reporter.

Now that I think of it, we might not have a regression from 9.0 --- my
big point is that the socket location, while fixed in 9.1, didn't fix it
in back branches, and therefore pg_upgrade doesn't handle them for old
pre-9.1 clusters.

I was unclear why the original pg_upgrade code used a separate
connection loop instead of pg_ctl -w, but when I found how broken pg_ctl
-w was, I fixed pg_ctl so at least going forward, it works for all
use-cases.

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

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