Re: pg_upgrade using appname to lock out other users

On ons, 2011-06-15 at 13:35 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I now believe we are overthinking all this.  pg_upgrade has always
> supported specification of a port number.  Why not just tell users to
> specify an unused port number > 1023, and not to use the default
> value?  Both old and new clusters will happily run on any specified
> port number during the upgrade.  This allows the lockout to work for
> both old and new clusters, which is better than enhancing -b because
> that will only be for > 9.1 servers. 

On non-Windows servers you could get this even safer by disabling the
TCP/IP socket altogether, and placing the Unix-domain socket in a
private temporary directory.  The "port" wouldn't actually matter then.