On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 09:53, Tom Lane wrote: > Oliver Elphick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Sat, 2003-01-04 at 02:17, Tom Lane wrote: > >> There isn't any simple way to lock *everyone* out of the DB and still > >> allow pg_upgrade to connect via the postmaster, and even if there were, > >> the DBA could too easily forget to do it. > > > I tackled this issue in the Debian upgrade scripts. > > > I close the running postmaster and open a new postmaster using a > > different port, so that normal connection attempts will fail because > > there is no postmaster running on the normal port. > > That's a good kluge, but still a kluge: it doesn't completely guarantee > that no one else connects while pg_upgrade is trying to do its thing. > > I am also concerned about the consequences of automatic background > activities. Even the periodic auto-CHECKPOINT done by current code > is not obviously safe to run behind pg_upgrade's back (it does make > WAL entries). And the auto-VACUUM that we are currently thinking of > is even less obviously safe. I think that someday, running pg_upgrade > standalone will become *necessary*, not just a good safety feature. > > regards, tom lane
I thought there was talk of adding a "single user"/admin only mode. That is, where only the administrator can connect to the database. -- Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Copeland Computer Consulting ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
