| From: | Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 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> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade: Pass -j down to vacuumdb |
| Date: | 2019-01-02 19:47:15 |
| Message-ID: | 2dc5eaeb-e60d-2a16-696e-7b4d3d3548cb@redhat.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 12/29/18 10:03 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 21/12/2018 11:12, Jesper Pedersen wrote:
>> Here is a patch that passes the -j option from pg_upgrade down to
>> vacuumdb if supported.
>
> It's not clear to me that that is what is usually wanted.
>
> The point of the post-upgrade analyze script is specifically to do the
> analyze in a gentle fashion. Mixing in parallelism would seem to defeat
> that a bit.
>
Well, that really depends. The user passed -j to pg_upgrade in order for
the upgrade to happen faster, so maybe they would expect, as I would,
that the ANALYZE phase would happen in parallel too.
At least there should be a "notice" about what the script will do in
this case.
Best regards,
Jesper
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2019-01-02 20:30:04 | Re: [HACKERS] Time to change pg_regress diffs to unified by default? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-01-02 19:47:10 | Re: Is MinMaxExpr really leakproof? |