From: | Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Jamison, Kirk" <k(dot)jamison(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(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: | 2019-01-25 13:30:57 |
Message-ID: | c448acf6-7c38-3d6d-c663-5387ccffb906@redhat.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Kirk,
On 1/24/19 9:31 PM, Jamison, Kirk wrote:
> According to CF app, this patch needs review so I took a look at it.
> Currently, your patch applies and builds cleanly, and all tests are also successful
> based from the CF bot patch tester.
>
> I'm not sure if I have understood the argument raised by Peter correctly.
> Quoting Peter, "it's not clear that pg_upgrade and vacuumdb are bound the same way, so it's not a given that the same -j number should be used."
> I think it's whether the # jobs for pg_upgrade is used the same way for parallel vacuum.
>
> According to the official docs, the recommended setting for pg_upgrade --j option is the maximum of the number of CPU cores and tablespaces. [1]
> As for vacuumdb, parallel vacuum's (-j) recommended setting is based from your max_connections [2], which is the max # of concurrent connections to your db server.
>
Thanks for your feedback !
As per Peter's comments I have changed the patch (v2) to not pass down
the -j option to vacuumdb.
Only an update to the documentation and console output is made in order
to make it more clear.
Best regards,
Jesper
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2019-01-25 14:01:01 | Re: House style for DocBook documentation? |
Previous Message | Daniel Verite | 2019-01-25 13:16:22 | Re: Alternative to \copy in psql modelled after \g |