Re: Upgrading rant.

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

From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Cc: Oliver Elphick <olly@lfix.co.uk>, Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee>, mlw <pgsql@mohawksoft.com>, Lamar Owen <lamar.owen@wgcr.org>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2003-01-05T04:37:59Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> That's a good kluge, but still a kluge: it doesn't completely guarantee
>> that no one else connects while pg_upgrade is trying to do its thing.

> I was thinking about using GUC:

> 	#max_connections = 32
> 	#superuser_reserved_connections = 2

> Set both of those to 1, and you lock out everyone but the super-user. 

You're missing the point: I don't want to lock out everyone but the
super-user, I want to lock out everyone, period.  Superusers are just
as likely to screw up pg_upgrade as anyone else.

BTW:

$ postmaster -N 1 -c superuser_reserved_connections=1
postmaster: superuser_reserved_connections must be less than max_connections.
$

			regards, tom lane