Tom Lane wrote: > "Ross J. Reedstrom" <reeds...@rice.edu> writes: > > As an operations guy, the idea of an upgrade using a random, > > non-repeatable port selection gives me the hebejeebees. > > Yeah, I agree. The latest version of the patch doesn't appear to have > any random component to it, though --- it just expects the user to > provide port numbers as switches.
Oh, you wanted pg_upgrade to pick a random port number? I can do that, but how would it check to see it is unused? -- 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
