| From: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Tomasz Szypowski <tomasz(dot)szypowski(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade version checking questions |
| Date: | 2019-04-04 13:40:40 |
| Message-ID: | L-956-YkM0DEV1jOI3O32iVnD4I4ZMoqfOPwots1c4Q1dI9jNOn4QSlANcQk2FwJE4Yv_sXIuT5Ty759nITA4BxUq_znsxGrVaC5BTP5buU=@yesql.se |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wednesday, March 27, 2019 1:43 PM, Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org> wrote:
> Re: Daniel Gustafsson 2019-03-26 pC-NMmh4vQLQP76YTwY4AuoD4OdNw9egikekyQpXFpgqmTlGjIZXOTd2W5RDZPpRski5N3ADRrLYgLk6QUuvmuT5fWC9acPAYyDU1AVxJcU=(at)yesql(dot)se
>
> > 0003 - Make -B default to CWD and remove the exec_path check
> > Defaulting to CWD for the new bindir has the side effect that the default
> > sockdir is in the bin/ directory which may be less optimal.
>
> Hmm, I would have thought that the default for the new bindir is the
> directory where pg_upgrade is located, not the CWD, which is likely to
> be ~postgres or the like?
Yes, thinking on it that's obviously better. The attached v2 repurposes the
find_my_exec() check to make the current directory of pg_upgrade the default
for new_cluster.bindir (the other two patches are left as they were).
cheers ./daniel
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 0001-Only-allow-upgrades-by-the-same-exact-version-new-v2.patch | application/octet-stream | 2.2 KB |
| 0002-Check-all-used-executables-v2.patch | application/octet-stream | 876 bytes |
| 0003-Default-new-bindir-to-exec_path-v2.patch | application/octet-stream | 4.9 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2019-04-04 13:41:17 | Re: Retronym: s/magnetic disk/main data/ |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2019-04-04 13:25:21 | Re: Inadequate executor locking of indexes |