Re: pg_upgrade does not completely honor --new-port
От | Alvaro Herrera |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_upgrade does not completely honor --new-port |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1349294701-sup-7511@alvh.no-ip.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_upgrade does not completely honor --new-port (Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim@gunduz.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_upgrade does not completely honor --new-port
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Excerpts from Devrim GÜNDÜZ's message of mié oct 03 17:00:16 -0300 2012: > > Hi, > > On Wed, 2012-09-26 at 22:06 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > I just performed a test upgrade from 9.1 to 9.2, and used > > > --new-port variable. However, the analyze_new_cluster.sh does not > > > include the new port, thus when I run it, it fails. Any chance to > > > add the port number to the script? > > > > Well, the reason people normally use the port number is to do a live > > check, but obviously when the script is created it isn't doing a > > check. I am worried that if I do embed the port number in there, then > > if they change the port after the upgrade, they now can't use the > > script. I assume users would have PGPORT set before running the > > script, no? > > They can't use the script in each way -- at least we can make it usable > for one case, I think. Well, you could have the script set the port number only if the variable is not set from the calling shell ... you know, PGPORT=${PGPORT:=the_other_number} . That way, if the user wants to specify a different port, they have to set PGPORT before calling the script. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: