Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Remove old-style VACUUM FULL
	(which was known for a little while
From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>,
	Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <603c8f071002111042y40971cfbod4628a2028925d67@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20100208043355.412637541B9@cvs.postgresql.org>
	<1265883032.7341.1149.camel@ebony>
	<201002111204.10183.andres@anarazel.de>
	<4B73FDC8.3050208@enterprisedb.com> <1265894548.7341.1521.camel@ebony>
	<10339.1265905658@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1265913196.7341.2334.camel@ebony>
	<603c8f071002111042y40971cfbod4628a2028925d67@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:03:08 +0000
Message-Id: <1265914988.7341.2408.camel@ebony>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 13:42 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > Avoiding a scan before running pg_upgrade is just a performance
> > optimisation.
> 
> But using pg_upgrade AT ALL is also a performance optimization; in
> fact AFAICS it's the only reason to use pg_upgrade.  So if you take
> that away there's no reason to use it at all.

I understand that the final process to switch from one release to
another needs to be quick. Before that we can have any number of
preparatory steps. One of those is backup, if you're sane. Another one
should be a preparatory step that can be performed while the database is
still on-line that checks that everything is in a good state for
upgrade. No corruptions, no weird flags, everything good.

If that last step is part of all upgrade procedures, including both
minor and major we will all be happier and healthier. And the server can
depend on that check and doesn't need to check itself for those
weirdnesses from an earlier era.

-- 
 Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com