Re: pg_upgrade vs. pg_ctl stop -m fast

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade vs. pg_ctl stop -m fast
Date: 2017-01-13 02:43:16
Message-ID: 20170113024316.GA28325@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:17:52AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > In 9.5, the default pg_ctl stop mode was changed from "smart" to "fast".
> > In pg_upgrade, there is this code:
> > ...
> > I think the last line should be changed to something like
> > fast ? "-m fast" : "-m smart");
>
> Ugh. Clear oversight.
>
> There is maybe room for a separate discussion about whether pg_upgrade
> *should* be using fast mode, but if so we could remove the "bool fast"
> argument from this function altogether.

Agreed, it should be remove. Should I do it?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2017-01-13 03:23:20 Re: Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2017-01-13 02:07:23 Re: Packages: Again