Re: pg_upgrade: Pass -j down to vacuumdb

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, "Jamison, Kirk" <k(dot)jamison(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, "'jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com'" <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(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 17:08:42
Message-ID: 201901251708.ha3sgz7dn4rm@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2019-Jan-25, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

> On 25/01/2019 11:28, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > based on that linking the value used by pg_upgrade and vacuumdb is a
> > bad concept in my opinion, and the patch should be rejected. More
> > documentation on pg_upgrade side to explain that a bit better could be
> > a good idea though, as it is perfectly possible to use your own
> > post-upgrade script or rewrite partially the generated one.
>
> Right. pg_upgrade doesn't actually call vacuumdb. It creates a script
> that you may use. The script itself contains a comment that says, if
> you want to do this as fast as possible, don't use this script. That
> comment could be enhanced to suggest the use of the -j option.

So let's have it write with a $VACUUMDB_OPTS variable, which is by
default defined as empty but with a comment suggesting that maybe the
user wants to add the -j option. This way, if they have to edit it,
they only have to edit the VACUUMDB_OPTS line instead of each of the two
vacuumdb lines.

--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2019-01-25 17:16:49 Re: pg_upgrade: Pass -j down to vacuumdb
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2019-01-25 17:03:27 Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions