Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 14:08:42 -0300
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
	"Jamison, Kirk" <k.jamison@jp.fujitsu.com>,
	"'jesper.pedersen@redhat.com'" <jesper.pedersen@redhat.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: <201901251708.ha3sgz7dn4rm@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <aeea26f9-f42b-8570-9ee1-304c4f33281b@2ndquadrant.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716-1013-2c1e88
Precedence: bulk

On 2019-Jan-25, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

> On 25/01/2019 11:28, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Right.  pg_upgrade doesn't actually call vacuumdb.  It creates a script
> that you may use.  The script itself contains a comment that says, if
> you want to do this as fast as possible, don't use this script.  That
> comment could be enhanced to suggest the use of the -j option.

So let's have it write with a $VACUUMDB_OPTS variable, which is by
default defined as empty but with a comment suggesting that maybe the
user wants to add the -j option.  This way, if they have to edit it,
they only have to edit the VACUUMDB_OPTS line instead of each of the two
vacuumdb lines.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services