Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Problem with pg_upgrade?

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Problem with pg_upgrade?
Date: 2011-03-31 18:55:20
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> > Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
> >> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> >> >> ?I think the maintenance
> >> >> overhead of an invisible variable is too much.
> >> >
> >> > A simple GUC or command-line switch isn't much code.
> >>
> >> I like the idea of a command-line switch.
> >
> > If you want to do that you should gereralize it as --binary-upgrade in
> > case we have other needs for it.
> Yeah.  Or we could do a binary_upgrade GUC which has the effect of
> forcibly suppressing autovacuum, and maybe other things later.  I
> think that's a lot less hazardous than fiddling with the autovacuum
> GUC.

I like the idea of a command-line flag because it forces everything to
be affected, and cannot be turned on and off in sessions --- if you are
doing a binary upgrade, locked-down is good. :-)

  Bruce Momjian  <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2011-03-31 18:59:38
Subject: Re: Bug in autovacuum.c?
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2011-03-31 18:54:15
Subject: Re: Bug in autovacuum.c?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group