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