| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_group_name_index corrupt? |
| Date: | 2000-05-05 15:41:30 |
| Message-ID: | 6754.957541290@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> If I remember correctly,pg_upgrade doesn't shutdown the postmaster
> after(or before) moving OLD data to the target dir though it tells us
> the message "You must stop/start the postmaster ...".
> How about calling pg_ctl from pg_upgrade to stop the postmaster ?
What I would actually like to see happen is that pg_upgrade uses a
standalone backend, with no postmaster running at all for the entire
procedure. Having a live postmaster connected to the system just
opens the door to getting screwed up by some other user connecting to
the database. But that's a bigger change than I dare try to make right
now...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2000-05-05 16:05:47 | Re: Porting reports (cont'd) |
| Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2000-05-05 15:36:01 | Re: pg_group_name_index corrupt? |