Christopher Browne <cbbro...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@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
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
