On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > I now believe we are overthinking all this. pg_upgrade has always > supported specification of a port number. Why not just tell users to > specify an unused port number > 1023, and not to use the default value?
1. Because it shouldn't be the user's problem to figure out a good choice of port number. 2. Because we also really ought to be ignoring the contents of pg_hba.conf during an upgrade, and instead have some mechanism that allows pg_upgrade to be sure of getting in (without creating a security hole in the process). I agree that back-patching these changes wouldn't be a wonderful thing, but we are going to do a lot more releases that have pg_upgrade in them in the future than we've already done in the past. It's not a bad thing to try to start improving on the basic mechanism, even if takes a while for versions that support that mechanism to become commonplace. Limiting what we're willing to do the server to improve the pg_upgrade experience in the future to what we're willing to back-patch is not going to be a winning strategy. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
