Bruce Momjian wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > > Robert Haas wrote: > > >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > >> > Robert Haas wrote: > > >> >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> > > >> >> wrote: > > >> >> > OK, fair enough. ?Should I apply my ports patch to Postgres 9.2? > > >> >> > > >> >> I'm not sure which patch you are referring to. > > >> > > > >> > This one which makes 50432 the default port. > > >> > > >> There appear to be some other changes mixed into this patch. > > > > > > The additional changes were to have the existing environment variables > > > begin with "PG", as requested. > > > > It's easier to read the patches if you do separate changes in separate > > patches. Anyway, I'm a bit nervous about this hunk: > > > > + if (old_cluster.port == DEF_PGUPORT) > > + pg_log(PG_FATAL, "When checking a live old server, " > > + "you must specify the old server's port > > number.\n"); > > > > Is the implication here that I'm now going to need to specify more > > than 4 command-line options/environment variables for this to work? > > Yes, we don't inherit PGPORT anymore. Doing anything else was too > complex to explain in the docs.
But only if you are running --check on a live server. Otherwise, we will just default to 50432 instead of 5432/PGPORT. -- 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
