On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 09:14:16PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > Bruce, > > * Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote: > > I have researched this and need feedback. > > In general, I like the whole idea of using random/special ports for the > duration of the upgrade. I agree that we need to keep the ability to > check the existing clusters. My gut feeling is this: keep the existing > port options just as they are, so --check works just fine, etc. Use > *only* long-options for the "ports to use during the actual upgrade" and > discourage their use- we want people to let a random couple of ports be > used during the upgrade to minimize the risk of someone connecting to > one of the systems. Obvioulsy, there may be special cases where that's > not an option, but I don't think we need to make it easy nor do I think > we need to have a short option for it.
As an operations guy, the idea of an upgrade using a random, non-repeatable port selection gives me the hebejeebees. Mr. Murphy will com knocking, sooner or later, with the server picking a port that just happens to be available right now, because it's service is restarting, or is under inet control. Ross -- Ross Reedstrom, Ph.D. reeds...@rice.edu Systems Engineer & Admin, Research Scientist phone: 713-348-6166 Connexions http://cnx.org fax: 713-348-3665 Rice University MS-375, Houston, TX 77005 GPG Key fingerprint = F023 82C8 9B0E 2CC6 0D8E F888 D3AE 810E 88F0 BEDE -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
