Re: pg_upgrade using appname to lock out other users

Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié jun 15 12:52:30 -0400 2011:
> > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> > > Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié jun 15 08:45:21 -0400 2011:
> > >> As a separate issue, I tend to agree with Tom that using psql as part
> > >> of the pg_upgrade process is a lousy idea and we need a better
> > >> solution.  But let's fix one thing at a time.
> > 
> > > Agreed on both counts ... but ... does this mean that we need a
> > > different program for programmable tasks as opposed to interactive
> > > ones?  Dealing with standalone backends *is* a pain, that's for sure.
> > 
> > So we fix the interface presented by standalone mode to be less insane.
> > That way, we can *reduce* the net amount of cruft in the system, rather
> > than adding more as all these proposals do.
> 
> +1 on that general idea, but who is going to do the work?

And you are going to backpatch all this?  I don't find this promising at
all.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + It's impossible for everything to be true. +