Re: pg_upgrade analyze script

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Georgios Kokolatos <gkokolatos(at)protonmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade analyze script
Date: 2020-11-10 01:21:04
Message-ID: 20201110012104.GB1887@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 03:47:22PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> You should just remove those calls. There is no need to replace them with
> vacuumdb calls. The reason those calls were there is that they were testing
> the generated script itself. If the script is gone, there is no more need.
> There are already separate tests for testing vacuumdb.

True, 102_vacuumdb_stages.pl already does all that.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Smith 2020-11-10 01:23:23 Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2020-11-10 01:10:23 Adding an aminsert() hint that triggers bottom-up index deletion for UPDATEs that can't use HOT