| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Robins Tharakan <tharakan(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects |
| Date: | 2021-03-23 18:59:24 |
| Message-ID: | 986904.1616525964@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info> writes:
> On 3/23/21 2:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> If you're passing multiple options, that is
>> --pg-dump-options "--foo=x --bar=y"
>> it seems just horribly fragile. Lose the double quotes and suddenly
>> --bar is a separate option to pg_upgrade itself, not part of the argument
>> for the previous option. That's pretty easy to do when passing things
>> through shell scripts, too.
> ... which would be all really easy if pg_upgrade wouldn't be assembling
> a shell script string to pass into parallel_exec_prog() by itself.
No, what I was worried about is shell script(s) that invoke pg_upgrade
and have to pass down some of these options through multiple levels of
option parsing.
BTW, it doesn't seem like the "pg-" prefix has any value-add here,
so maybe "--dump-option" and "--restore-option" would be suitable
spellings.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2021-03-23 19:04:27 | Re: Support for NSS as a libpq TLS backend |
| Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2021-03-23 18:54:29 | Re: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects |