Re: pg_upgrade using appname to lock out other users

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2011-06-15T16:52:30Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mi jun 15 08:45:21 -0400 2011:
>> As a separate issue, I tend to agree with Tom that using psql as part
>> of the pg_upgrade process is a lousy idea and we need a better
>> solution.  But let's fix one thing at a time.

> Agreed on both counts ... but ... does this mean that we need a
> different program for programmable tasks as opposed to interactive
> ones?  Dealing with standalone backends *is* a pain, that's for sure.

So we fix the interface presented by standalone mode to be less insane.
That way, we can *reduce* the net amount of cruft in the system, rather
than adding more as all these proposals do.

			regards, tom lane