Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> > I was thinking that we could sidestep the whole port number question if
> > we didn't try to start up postmaster, and used a stand-alone backend (
> > postgres --single) instead.
>
> That would be a good place to get to eventually, but I think it
Heikki Linnakangas writes:
> I was thinking that we could sidestep the whole port number question if
> we didn't try to start up postmaster, and used a stand-alone backend (
> postgres --single) instead.
That would be a good place to get to eventually, but I think it'd be
a serious error to be
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> User Bmomjian wrote:
> >>> Log Message:
> >>> ---
> >>> Add support for specifying port numbers.
> >> Hmm, I suppose we can't readily run pg_dump against a stand-alone backend?
> >
> > I am confused by the
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
User Bmomjian wrote:
Log Message:
---
Add support for specifying port numbers.
Hmm, I suppose we can't readily run pg_dump against a stand-alone backend?
I am confused by the question; we used to default to the 5432 port
numbers.
I wa
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> User Bmomjian wrote:
> > Log Message:
> > ---
> > Add support for specifying port numbers.
>
> Hmm, I suppose we can't readily run pg_dump against a stand-alone backend?
I am confused by the question; we used to default to the 5432 port
numbers.
--
Bruce M
User Bmomjian wrote:
Log Message:
---
Add support for specifying port numbers.
Hmm, I suppose we can't readily run pg_dump against a stand-alone backend?
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgres
