| From: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Denis Laxalde <denis(dot)laxalde(at)dalibo(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais <jgdr(at)dalibo(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Disable bgworkers during servers start in pg_upgrade |
| Date: | 2021-08-26 13:59:49 |
| Message-ID: | 30D4153D-8F40-4BB8-838B-142D2C4EB4F0@yesql.se |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 26 Aug 2021, at 15:43, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Le jeu. 26 août 2021 à 21:38, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se <mailto:daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>> a écrit :
> > On 26 Aug 2021, at 15:09, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us <mailto:bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>> wrote:
>
> > Basically, pg_upgrade has avoided any backend changes that could be
> > controlled by GUCs and I am not sure we want to start adding such
> > changes for just this.
>
> In principle I think it’s sound to try to avoid backend changes where possible
> without sacrificing robustness.
>
> I agree, but it seems quite more likely that an extension relying on a bgworker changes this guc, compared to an extension forcing autovacuum to be on for instance.
Agreed, in this particular case I think there is merit to the idea of enforcing
it in the backend.
--
Daniel Gustafsson https://vmware.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-08-26 14:02:07 | Re: Can we get rid of repeated queries from pg_dump? |
| Previous Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2021-08-26 13:43:34 | Re: [PATCH] Disable bgworkers during servers start in pg_upgrade |