Bruce Momjian wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > > > You might remember we added a postmaster/postgres -b switch to indicate > > > binary upgrade mode. The attached patch prevents any client without an > > > application_name of 'binary-upgrade' from connecting to the cluster > > > while it is binary upgrade mode. This helps prevent unauthorized users > > > from connecting during the upgrade. This will not help for clusters > > > that do not have the -b flag, e.g. pre-9.1. > > > > > Does this seem useful? > > > > No ... that seems like a kluge. It's ugly and it's leaky. > > > > What we really ought to be doing here is fixing things so that > > pg_upgrade does not need to have a running postmaster in either > > installation, but works with some variant of standalone mode. > > That would actually be *safe* against concurrent connections, > > rather than only sorta kinda maybe safe. > > I keep replying to that suggestion by reminding people that pg_upgrade > relies heavily on psql features, as does pg_dumpall, and recoding that > in the backend will be error-prone.
Also, a standalone backend does not have libpq either so how do you get values into application variables? Parse the text output? That seems like a much larger kludge. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
