From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
Cc: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Denis Laxalde <denis(dot)laxalde(at)dalibo(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr(at)dalibo(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Disable bgworkers during servers start in pg_upgrade |
Date: | 2021-08-26 13:42:29 |
Message-ID: | 20210826134229.GC22637@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 03:38:23PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > On 26 Aug 2021, at 15:09, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 03:24:33PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>
> >> .. I still think that
> >> changing bgworker_should_start_now() is a better option.
> >
> > I am not sure. We have a lot of pg_upgrade code that turns off things
> > like autovacuum and that has worked fine:
>
> True, but there are also conditionals on IsBinaryUpgrade for starting the
> autovacuum launcher in the postmaster, so there is some precedent.
Oh, I was not aware of that.
> > Basically, pg_upgrade has avoided any backend changes that could be
> > controlled by GUCs and I am not sure we want to start adding such
> > changes for just this.
>
> In principle I think it’s sound to try to avoid backend changes where possible
> without sacrificing robustness.
Agreed.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2021-08-26 13:43:34 | Re: [PATCH] Disable bgworkers during servers start in pg_upgrade |
Previous Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2021-08-26 13:38:23 | Re: [PATCH] Disable bgworkers during servers start in pg_upgrade |