Bruce Momjian wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 11:47 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > > Robert Haas wrote: > > >> > We can pick different options for 9.0, 9.1, and 9.2. ?(For PG 9.0 > > >> > probably only #1 is appropriate.) > > >> > > >> I don't like any of these options as well as what I already proposed. > > >> I proposed a complicated approach that actually fixes the problem for > > >> real; you're proposing a whole bunch of simpler approaches all of > > >> which have pretty obvious holes. ?We already have something that only > > >> sorta works; replacing it with a different system that only sorta > > >> works is not going to be a great leap forward. > > > > > > What is your proposal? ?Write a password into a file that is read by the > > > postmaster on startup and used for connections? ?That would remove the > > > "modify pg_hba.conf to 'trust'" step, but again only for new servers. > > > > Yeah, as noted upthread, I'd probably create a binary_upgrade.conf > > that works like recovery.conf, if it were me. > > Well, I know exactly where the data directories are. We will still have > a problem for anyone upgrading from pre-9.2.
We could go with the idea of documenting the suggestion of using unused ports in pre-9.2 and use that file for 9.2. We would still have to mention the ports idea in 9.2 as well because of people upgrading from pre-9.2. We can have that file be read only in -b binary-upgrade mode so there is little risk if the file accidentally isn't deleted. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
