On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:05:54PM -0300, Leonardo M. Ramé wrote: > On 2014-05-28 07:39:33 -0700, Adrian Klaver wrote: > > On 05/28/2014 07:24 AM, Claudio Biasatti wrote: > > >with check > > > > > >/usr/lib/postgresql/9.3/bin/pg_upgrade --check -b > > >/usr/lib/postgresql/8.4/bin/ -B /usr/lib/postgresql/9.3/bin/ -d > > >/mnt/datos/ -D /mnt/datos/datos_9.3/main/ -o ' -c > > >config_file=/etc/postgresql/8.4/main/postgresql.conf' -O ' -c > > >config_file=/etc/postgresql/9.3/main/postgresql.conf' > > > > > > > > >without check > > > > > >/usr/lib/postgresql/9.3/bin/pg_upgrade -b /usr/lib/postgresql/8.4/bin/ > > >-B /usr/lib/postgresql/9.3/bin/ -d /mnt/datos/ -D > > >/mnt/datos/datos_9.3/main/ -o ' -c > > >config_file=/etc/postgresql/8.4/main/postgresql.conf' -O ' -c > > >config_file=/etc/postgresql/9.3/main/postgresql.conf' > > > > > > > > > > So what are the port numbers in the conf files. > > > > I have not used that option, but is there a chance you are double > > starting the servers? > > > > Starting an instance for each using the port numbers from the conf > > files and then pg_upgrade is starting them on 50432. > > > > > > Sorry guys, one of the in-site tech support guys started the postgresql > service while we were trying to do the upgrade. Looks like this was the > cause of the failure. OK. We block users from connecting to our own postmaster by placing the socket files in the current directory, but that doesn't prevent someone from starting the server using the default configuration. Not sure how we could block that. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@xxxxxxxxxx> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. +
