| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, "Jamison, Kirk" <k(dot)jamison(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, "'jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com'" <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade: Pass -j down to vacuumdb |
| Date: | 2019-01-25 17:08:42 |
| Message-ID: | 201901251708.ha3sgz7dn4rm@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-Jan-25, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 25/01/2019 11:28, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > based on that linking the value used by pg_upgrade and vacuumdb is a
> > bad concept in my opinion, and the patch should be rejected. More
> > documentation on pg_upgrade side to explain that a bit better could be
> > a good idea though, as it is perfectly possible to use your own
> > post-upgrade script or rewrite partially the generated one.
>
> Right. pg_upgrade doesn't actually call vacuumdb. It creates a script
> that you may use. The script itself contains a comment that says, if
> you want to do this as fast as possible, don't use this script. That
> comment could be enhanced to suggest the use of the -j option.
So let's have it write with a $VACUUMDB_OPTS variable, which is by
default defined as empty but with a comment suggesting that maybe the
user wants to add the -j option. This way, if they have to edit it,
they only have to edit the VACUUMDB_OPTS line instead of each of the two
vacuumdb lines.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-01-25 17:16:49 | Re: pg_upgrade: Pass -j down to vacuumdb |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-01-25 17:03:27 | Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions |