Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > > Robert Haas wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > >> > Robert Haas wrote:
> > >> >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > >> >> > OK, fair enough. ?Should I apply my ports patch to Postgres 9.2?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I'm not sure which patch you are referring to.
> > >> >
> > >> > This one which makes 50432 the default port.
> > >>
> > >> There appear to be some other changes mixed into this patch.
> > >
> > > The additional changes were to have the existing environment variables
> > > begin with "PG", as requested.
> >
> > It's easier to read the patches if you do separate changes in separate
> > patches. Anyway, I'm a bit nervous about this hunk:
> >
> > + if (old_cluster.port == DEF_PGUPORT)
> > + pg_log(PG_FATAL, "When checking a live old server, "
> > + "you must specify the old server's port number.\n");
> >
> > Is the implication here that I'm now going to need to specify more
> > than 4 command-line options/environment variables for this to work?
>
> Yes, we don't inherit PGPORT anymore. Doing anything else was too
> complex to explain in the docs.
But only if you are running --check on a live server. Otherwise, we
will just default to 50432 instead of 5432/PGPORT.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
