Re: pg_upgrade: Pass -j down to vacuumdb

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: "Jamison, Kirk" <k(dot)jamison(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>
Cc: "'jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com'" <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, 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: 2019-01-29 05:08:30
Message-ID: 20190129050830.GE3121@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 12:35:30AM +0000, Jamison, Kirk wrote:
> I just checked the patch.
> As per advice, you removed the versioning and specified --jobs.
> The patch still applies, builds and passed the tests successfully.

I would document the optional VACUUM_OPTS on the page of pg_upgrade.
If Peter thinks it is fine to not do so, that's fine for me as well.

It seems to me that the latest patch sent is incorrect for multiple
reasons:
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.
2) Perhaps we need to worry about the second vacuumdb --all command,
which may want custom options, which are not necessarily the same as
the options of the first command? I don't think we need to care as it
applies only to an upgraded cluster using something older 8.4, just
wondering..
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2019-01-29 05:14:03 Re: Built-in connection pooler
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2019-01-29 04:51:58 Re: Early WIP/PoC for inlining CTEs