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