Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On m?n, 2011-06-27 at 14:34 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > Robert Haas wrote:
> > > > > It's easier to read the patches if you do separate changes in separate
> > > > > patches. Anyway, I'm a bit nervous about this
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On m?n, 2011-06-27 at 14:34 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Robert Haas wrote:
> > > > It's easier to read the patches if you do separate changes in separate
> > > > patches. Anyway, I'm a bit nervous about this hunk:
> > > >
> > > > +
On mån, 2011-06-27 at 14:34 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Robert Haas wrote:
> > > 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_PG
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Robert Haas wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> > > Robert Haas wrote:
>> > >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> > >> > Robert Haas wrote:
>> > >> >> On Mon, Ju
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Robert Haas wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > >> > Robert Haas wrote:
> > >> >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Bruce Momjian
> > >> >> wrote:
> > >>
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> > Robert Haas wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> >> > Robert Haas wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Bruce Momji
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> > Robert Haas wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> >> > OK, fair enough. ?Should I apply my ports
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> > Robert Haas wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> >> > OK, fair enough. ?Should I apply my ports patch to Postgres 9.2?
>> >>
>
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> > OK, fair enough. ?Should I apply my ports patch to Postgres 9.2?
> >>
> >> I'm not sure which patch you are referring to.
> >
> > Thi
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Bruce Momjian 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
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Bruce Momjian 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.
--
Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us
Enterp
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> OK, fair enough. Should I apply my ports patch to Postgres 9.2?
I'm not sure which patch you are referring to.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing
\Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 10:33 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> >> wrote:
> >> > Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of vie jun 24 22:22:55 -0400 2011:
> >> >> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Bruce Momjian
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 10:33 PM, Alvaro Herrera
>> wrote:
>> > Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of vie jun 24 22:22:55 -0400 2011:
>> >> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> >
>> >> > You want t
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 10:33 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of vie jun 24 22:22:55 -0400 2011:
> >> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> >> > You want the environment variable support removed?
> >>
> >> I don't. ?It
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 10:33 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of vie jun 24 22:22:55 -0400 2011:
>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>> > You want the environment variable support removed?
>>
>> I don't. It's production usefulness is questio
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of vie jun 24 22:22:55 -0400 2011:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > You want the environment variable support removed?
>
> I don't. It's production usefulness is questionable, but it's quite
> handy for testing IMO.
If that's what
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> In the above case, you create a bunch of traps. If the user abandons
> the attempt to run pg_upgrade but leaves the shell open, comes back at
> some other time (or, say, someone else who also logs into the shared
> postgres account), and runs just "pg_upgrade" for lack of
On fre, 2011-06-24 at 19:47 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I'm wondering why pg_upgrade needs environment variables at all. It's a
> > one-shot operation. Environment variables are typically used to shared
> > default settings across programs. I don't see how that applies here.
>
> They were t
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On fre, 2011-06-24 at 16:34 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> > > > It also creates two new environment variables,
>> > > > OLDPGPORT and NEWPGPORT, to control the port values because we
>> > don't
>> > > > want to def
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On fre, 2011-06-24 at 16:34 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > > It also creates two new environment variables,
> > > > OLDPGPORT and NEWPGPORT, to control the port values because we
> > don't
> > > > want to default to PGPORT anymore.
> > >
> > > I would prefer that all P
On fre, 2011-06-24 at 16:34 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > It also creates two new environment variables,
> > > OLDPGPORT and NEWPGPORT, to control the port values because we
> don't
> > > want to default to PGPORT anymore.
> >
> > I would prefer that all PostgreSQL-related environment variable
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On tor, 2011-06-23 at 21:39 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > I have created the following patch which uses 25432 as the default port
> > number for pg_upgrade.
>
> I don't think we should just steal a port from the reserved range.
> Picking a random port from the private/d
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 9:04 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> It also creates two new environment variables,
>> OLDPGPORT and NEWPGPORT, to control the port values because we don't
>> want to default to PGPORT anymore.
>
> I would prefer that all PostgreSQL-related environment variables start
> with
On tor, 2011-06-23 at 21:39 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I have created the following patch which uses 25432 as the default port
> number for pg_upgrade.
I don't think we should just steal a port from the reserved range.
Picking a random port from the private/dynamic range seems more
appropriate.
25 matches
Mail list logo
