Re: pg_upgrade using appname to lock out other users

Stephen Frost wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> Bruce,
> 
> * Bruce Momjian (bruce@momjian.us) wrote:
> > I have researched this and need feedback.  
> 
> In general, I like the whole idea of using random/special ports for the
> duration of the upgrade.  I agree that we need to keep the ability to
> check the existing clusters.  My gut feeling is this: keep the existing
> port options just as they are, so --check works just fine, etc.  Use
> *only* long-options for the "ports to use during the actual upgrade" and
> discourage their use- we want people to let a random couple of ports be
> used during the upgrade to minimize the risk of someone connecting to
> one of the systems.  Obvioulsy, there may be special cases where that's
> not an option, but I don't think we need to make it easy nor do I think
> we need to have a short option for it.

Having long options mean different than short options seems very
confusing.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +