On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 11:00:16PM +0300, Devrim Gunduz wrote:
>
> 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, my assumption is that they are unlikely to move the old _binary_
directory, but they are more likely to change the port number. My point
is that if they change the port number to the default from a
non-default, or they set the PGPORT environment variable, the script
will work. If we hard-code the port, it would not work.
In fact, pg_upgrade defaults to use port 50432 if they don't supply one.
We would embed the port number only if they supplied a custom port
number, but again, they might change that before going live with the new
server.
I guess I am confused why you would use pg_upgrade, and start the new
server on a non-default port that isn't the same as PGPORT.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
