On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> 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.
Oh...
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
