From: | "Jamison, Kirk" <k(dot)jamison(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "'jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com'" <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com" <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(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: | 2019-02-01 08:37:32 |
Message-ID: | D09B13F772D2274BB348A310EE3027C6416F6E@g01jpexmbkw24 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On January 31, 2019, 9:29PM +0000, Jesper Pedersen wrote:
>>> I added most of the documentation back, as requested by Kirk.
>>
>> Actually, I find it useful to be documented. However, major contributors have higher opinions in terms of experience, so I think it's alright with me not to include the doc part if they finally say so.
>
> I think we need to leave it to the Committer to decide, as both Peter and Michael are committers; provided the patch reaches RfC.
Agreed.
>>> 1) You still enforce -j to use the number of jobs that the caller of
>>> pg_upgrade provides, and we agreed that both things are separate
>>> concepts upthread, no? What has been suggested by Alvaro is to add
>>> a comment so as one can use VACUUM_OPTS with -j optionally, instead
>>> of suggesting a full-fledged vacuumdb command which depends on what
>>> pg_upgrade uses. So there is no actual need for the if/else
>>> complication business.
>
>> I think it is ok for the echo command to highlight to the user that
>> running --analyze-only using the same amount of jobs will give a faster result.
Since you used user_opts.jobs (which is coming from pg_upgrade, is it not?),
could you clarify more the statement above? Or did you mean somehow that
it won't be a problem for vacuumdb to use the same?
Though correctness-wise is arguable, if the committers can let it pass
from your answer, then I think it's alright.
I'm not sure if misunderstood the purpose of $VACUUMDB_OPTS. I thought what
the other developers suggested is to utilize it so that --jobs for vacuumdb
would be optional and just based from user-specified option $VACUUMDB_OPTS.
By which it would not utilize the amount of jobs used for pg_upgrade.
To address your need of needing a parallel, the script would just then
suggest if the user wants a --jobs option. The if/else for number of jobs is
not needed in that case, maybe only for ifndef WIN32 else case.
Regards,
Kirk Jamison
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Arthur Zakirov | 2019-02-01 09:09:28 | Re: [PROPOSAL] Shared Ispell dictionaries |
Previous Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2019-02-01 08:30:12 | Re: ALTER SESSION |