Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Problem with pg_upgrade?

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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

Robert Haas
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2011-03-31 16:17:49
Subject: Bug in autovacuum.c?
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2011-03-31 16:13:27
Subject: Re: found a very confusing and maybe outdated sentence

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group