| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Problem with pg_upgrade? |
| Date: | 2011-03-31 16:14:26 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTi=RDKdpfnjuXz4FMs+JsFLXRx1zfrOCybK5UF2H@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
>> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> >> ?I think the maintenance
>> >> overhead of an invisible variable is too much.
>> >
>> > A simple GUC or command-line switch isn't much code.
>>
>> I like the idea of a command-line switch.
>
> If you want to do that you should gereralize it as --binary-upgrade in
> case we have other needs for it.
Yeah. Or we could do a binary_upgrade GUC which has the effect of
forcibly suppressing autovacuum, and maybe other things later. I
think that's a lot less hazardous than fiddling with the autovacuum
GUC.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-03-31 16:17:49 | Bug in autovacuum.c? |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-03-31 16:13:27 | Re: found a very confusing and maybe outdated sentence |