Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 19:28:59 +0900
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: "Jamison, Kirk" <k.jamison@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: "'jesper.pedersen@redhat.com'" <jesper.pedersen@redhat.com>,
	Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>,
	"pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
	Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade: Pass -j down to vacuumdb
Message-ID: <20190125102859.GD6459@paquier.xyz>
References: <11b6b108-6ac0-79a6-785a-f13dfe60ab92@redhat.com>
 <ba90295e-9734-07bc-3453-bfa878948478@2ndquadrant.com>
 <2dc5eaeb-e60d-2a16-696e-7b4d3d3548cb@redhat.com>
 <59f9323a-fee8-88f6-16ab-2319149b00be@2ndquadrant.com>
 <5b7d95ba-8920-357d-1ec6-1084ce34a9e6@redhat.com>
 <D09B13F772D2274BB348A310EE3027C64137E4@g01jpexmbkw24>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="LSp5EJdfMPwZcMS1"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <D09B13F772D2274BB348A310EE3027C64137E4@g01jpexmbkw24>
Precedence: bulk


--LSp5EJdfMPwZcMS1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 02:31:57AM +0000, Jamison, Kirk wrote:
> I'm not sure if I have understood the argument raised by Peter
> correctly.  Quoting Peter, "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."  I think it's whether the # jobs for
> pg_upgrade is used the same way for parallel vacuum.

vacuumdb and pg_upgrade are designed for different purposes and have
different properties, hence using a value of -j for one does not
necessarily mean that the same value should be used for the other.
An ANALYZE is nice because it is non-intrusive for a live production
system, and if you begin to pass down a -j argument you may finish by
eating more resources that would have been necessary for the same
job.  For some users perhaps that matters, for some it does not.  So
based on that linking the value used by pg_upgrade and vacuumdb is a
bad concept in my opinion, and the patch should be rejected.  More
documentation on pg_upgrade side to explain that a bit better could be
a good idea though, as it is perfectly possible to use your own
post-upgrade script or rewrite partially the generated one.
--
Michael

--LSp5EJdfMPwZcMS1
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=DC/H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--LSp5EJdfMPwZcMS1--