On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: >> > Robert Haas wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: >> >> > Robert Haas wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 1:49 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
