From: | Jerry Sievers <gsievers19(at)comcast(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(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: | 2019-01-03 18:55:34 |
Message-ID: | 87ftu9r2op.fsf@jsievers.enova.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 02/01/2019 20:47, Jesper Pedersen wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> pg_upgrade -j reduces the *downtime* caused by pg_upgrade during the
> upgrade process. Also, during said downtime, nothing else is happening,
> so you can use all the resources of the machine.
>
> Once the system is back up, you don't necessarily want to use all the
> resources. The analyze script is specifically written to run while
> production traffic is active. If you just want to run the analyze as
> fast as possible, you can just run vacuumdb -j directly, without using
> the script.
Peter, I'm skeptical here.
I might permit a connection to a just pg_upgraded DB prior to any
analyze being known finished only for the most trivial case. At my site
however, *trivial* systems are a small minority.
In fact, our automated upgrade workflow uses our home-built parallel
analyzer which predates vacuumdb -j. Apps are not allowed into the DB
until a fast 1st pass has been done.
We run it in 2 phases...
$all preceeding upgrade steps w/system locked out
analyze-lite (reduced stats target)
open DB for application traffic
analyze-full
Of course we are increasing downtime by disallowing app traffic till
finish of analyze-lite however the assumption is that many queries would
be too slow to attempt without full analyzer coverage, albiet at a
reduced stats target.
IMO this is certainly a case of no 1-size-fits-all solution so perhaps a
--analyze-jobs option :-)
FWIW
Thanks
> Moreover, it's not clear that pg_upgrade and vacuumdb are bound the same
> way, so it's not a given that the same -j number should be used.
>
> Perhaps more documentation would be useful here.
--
Jerry Sievers
Postgres DBA/Development Consulting
e: postgres(dot)consulting(at)comcast(dot)net
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-01-03 19:10:20 | Re: [PATCH] get rid of StdRdOptions, use individual binary reloptions representation for each relation kind instead |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2019-01-03 18:54:28 | Re: Unified logging system for command-line programs |