On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > 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.
Oh... -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
