| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Oliver Elphick <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, mlw <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Upgrading rant. |
| Date: | 2003-01-05 04:37:59 |
| Message-ID: | 6281.1041741479@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> That's a good kluge, but still a kluge: it doesn't completely guarantee
>> that no one else connects while pg_upgrade is trying to do its thing.
> I was thinking about using GUC:
> #max_connections = 32
> #superuser_reserved_connections = 2
> Set both of those to 1, and you lock out everyone but the super-user.
You're missing the point: I don't want to lock out everyone but the
super-user, I want to lock out everyone, period. Superusers are just
as likely to screw up pg_upgrade as anyone else.
BTW:
$ postmaster -N 1 -c superuser_reserved_connections=1
postmaster: superuser_reserved_connections must be less than max_connections.
$
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Reggie Burnett | 2003-01-05 06:23:18 | pgsql oid question |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-01-05 04:24:14 | Re: Upgrading rant. |