| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade vs. pg_ctl stop -m fast |
| Date: | 2017-01-13 15:07:28 |
| Message-ID: | 5516.1484320048@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 1/12/17 9:43 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:17:52AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>>>> I think the last line should be changed to something like
>>>> fast ? "-m fast" : "-m smart");
>>> 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?
> For 9.5 and 9.6, I think we should backpatch what I suggested above, to
> minimize the behavior change. For master we can consider removing the
> distinction and just use fast shutdown all the time, but I haven't
> checked all the possible implications of that change.
That sounds sensible to me.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-01-13 15:18:23 | Re: [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-01-13 15:00:19 | Re: [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal |