Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] pg_upgrade -u

2013-06-29 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 11:59:58PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 6/28/13 9:43 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 09:15:31PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >> On 6/28/13 6:06 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 09:44:00AM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] pg_upgrade -u

2013-06-28 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 6/28/13 9:43 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 09:15:31PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On 6/28/13 6:06 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 09:44:00AM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On 5/28/13 10:55 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Wow, I never realized o

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] pg_upgrade -u

2013-06-28 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 6/28/13 6:06 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 09:44:00AM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>> pg_upgrade should somehow be able to find out by itself what the >>> superuser of the old cluster was. >> Uh, any idea how to do that? > select rolname fro

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] pg_upgrade -u

2013-06-28 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 09:15:31PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 6/28/13 6:06 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 09:44:00AM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >> On 5/28/13 10:55 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >>> Wow, I never realized other tools used -U for user, instead of -u.

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] pg_upgrade -u

2013-06-28 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 6/28/13 6:06 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 09:44:00AM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On 5/28/13 10:55 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >>> Wow, I never realized other tools used -U for user, instead of -u. >>> Should I change pg_upgrade to use -U for 9.4? I can keep supporting

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] pg_upgrade -u

2013-06-28 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 08:42:21AM -0400, Ray Stell wrote: > > On May 29, 2013, at 11:07 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 08:59:42AM -0400, Ray Stell wrote: > >>> [ moved to hacker ] The question is whether hard-wiring these > >>> helps more than it hurts, and which ones shoul

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] pg_upgrade -u

2013-06-28 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 09:44:00AM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 5/28/13 10:55 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Wow, I never realized other tools used -U for user, instead of -u. > > Should I change pg_upgrade to use -U for 9.4? I can keep supporting -u > > as an undocumented option. > > It se

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] pg_upgrade -u

2013-06-28 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 09:08:03PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > On 05/28/2013 07:55 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > >>Perhaps just documenting the behavior is all that is needed, but -U is > >>everywhere and I think that's a good thing. > > > >[ moved to hacker ] > > > >Wow, I never realized ot

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] pg_upgrade -u

2013-05-30 Thread Ray Stell
On May 29, 2013, at 11:07 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 08:59:42AM -0400, Ray Stell wrote: >>> [ moved to hacker ] >>> The question is whether hard-wiring these helps more than it hurts, and >>> which ones should be hard-wired. I seems to me that superuser is exactly that s

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] pg_upgrade -u

2013-05-29 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 08:59:42AM -0400, Ray Stell wrote: > > [ moved to hacker ] > > > > Wow, I never realized other tools used -U for user, instead of -u. > > Should I change pg_upgrade to use -U for 9.4? I can keep supporting > > -u as an undocumented option. > > That would make for consistenc

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] pg_upgrade -u

2013-05-29 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 5/28/13 10:55 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Wow, I never realized other tools used -U for user, instead of -u. > Should I change pg_upgrade to use -U for 9.4? I can keep supporting -u > as an undocumented option. It seems to me that that option shouldn't be necessary anyway. pg_upgrade should so

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] pg_upgrade -u

2013-05-29 Thread Ray Stell
On May 28, 2013, at 10:55 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 03:05:57PM -0400, Ray Stell wrote: >>> However, if we pass these items into the scripts, we then force >>> these values to be used, even if the user wants to use a different >>> value. It is a balance between supplying

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] pg_upgrade -u

2013-05-28 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On 05/28/2013 07:55 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: Perhaps just documenting the behavior is all that is needed, but -U is everywhere and I think that's a good thing. [ moved to hacker ] Wow, I never realized other tools used -U for user, instead of -u. Should I change pg_upgrade to use -U for 9.4?

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] pg_upgrade -u

2013-05-28 Thread Bruce Momjian
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 03:05:57PM -0400, Ray Stell wrote: > > However, if we pass these items into the scripts, we then force > > these values to be used, even if the user wants to use a different > > value. It is a balance between supplying defaults vs. requiring the > > user to supply or change