From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade vs. pg_ctl stop -m fast |
Date: | 2017-01-13 15:07:28 |
Message-ID: | 5516.1484320048@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 1/12/17 9:43 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:17:52AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>>>> I think the last line should be changed to something like
>>>> fast ? "-m fast" : "-m smart");
>>> There is maybe room for a separate discussion about whether pg_upgrade
>>> *should* be using fast mode, but if so we could remove the "bool fast"
>>> argument from this function altogether.
>> Agreed, it should be remove. Should I do it?
> For 9.5 and 9.6, I think we should backpatch what I suggested above, to
> minimize the behavior change. For master we can consider removing the
> distinction and just use fast shutdown all the time, but I haven't
> checked all the possible implications of that change.
That sounds sensible to me.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-01-13 15:18:23 | Re: [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-01-13 15:00:19 | Re: [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal |