Re: pg_upgrade does not completely honor --new-port - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: pg_upgrade does not completely honor --new-port
Date
Msg-id 1349294701-sup-7511@alvh.no-ip.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_upgrade does not completely honor --new-port  (Devrim GÜNDÜZ <devrim@gunduz.org>)
Responses Re: pg_upgrade does not completely honor --new-port  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Excerpts from Devrim GÜNDÜZ's message of mié oct 03 17:00:16 -0300 2012:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 2012-09-26 at 22:06 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > > I just performed a test upgrade from 9.1 to 9.2, and used
> > > --new-port variable. However, the analyze_new_cluster.sh does not
> > > include the new port, thus when I run it, it fails. Any chance to
> > > add the port number to the script?
> >
> > Well, the reason people normally use the port number is to do a live
> > check, but obviously when the script is created it isn't doing a
> > check.  I am worried that if I do embed the port number in there, then
> > if they change the port after the upgrade, they now can't use the
> > script.  I assume users would have PGPORT set before running the
> > script, no?
>
> They can't use the script in each way -- at least we can make it usable
> for one case, I think.

Well, you could have the script set the port number only if the variable
is not set from the calling shell ... you know,
PGPORT=${PGPORT:=the_other_number} .  That way, if the user wants to
specify a different port, they have to set PGPORT before calling the
script.

--
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Support for REINDEX CONCURRENTLY
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade does not completely honor --new-port