On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> "Ross J. Reedstrom" <reeds...@rice.edu> writes: >> > As an operations guy, the idea of an upgrade using a random, >> > non-repeatable port selection gives me the hebejeebees. >> >> Yeah, I agree. The latest version of the patch doesn't appear to have >> any random component to it, though --- it just expects the user to >> provide port numbers as switches. > > Oh, you wanted pg_upgrade to pick a random port number? I can do that, > but how would it check to see it is unused?
If no port is specified, that *might* be a reasonable behavior, but it certainly throws in a dose of the wrong sort of nondeterminism, hence heebie-jeebies... -- When confronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?" -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
