Re: pg_upgrade using appname to lock out other users
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_upgrade using appname to lock out other users |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 19032.1308162907@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_upgrade using appname to lock out other users (Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_upgrade using appname to lock out other
users
Re: pg_upgrade using appname to lock out other users pg_upgrade defaulting to port 25432 |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: >> [ just recommend using a different port number during pg_upgrade ] > +1... That seems to have lots of nice properties. Yeah, that seems like an appropriate expenditure of effort. It's surely not bulletproof, since someone could intentionally connect to the actual port number, but getting to bulletproof is a lot more work than anyone seems to want to do right now. (And, as Bruce pointed out, no complete solution would be back-patchable anyway.) regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: