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