From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Jamison, Kirk <k.jamison@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: 'jesper.pedersen@redhat.com' <jesper.pedersen@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: fabriziomello@gmail.com <fabriziomello@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade: Pass -j down to vacuumdb
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 14:08:30 +0900
Message-ID: <20190129050830.GE3121@paquier.xyz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <D09B13F772D2274BB348A310EE3027C64146AF@g01jpexmbkw24>
References: <5b7d95ba-8920-357d-1ec6-1084ce34a9e6@redhat.com>
<D09B13F772D2274BB348A310EE3027C64137E4@g01jpexmbkw24>
<c448acf6-7c38-3d6d-c663-5387ccffb906@redhat.com>
<D09B13F772D2274BB348A310EE3027C6413F1A@g01jpexmbkw24>
<388de5bc-858b-4686-d2e5-d0b21981dd72@redhat.com>
<CAFcNs+qCPbzErgcmTDqW2qzkt7kzarjWqD48VimKD4mXM0nutA@mail.gmail.com>
<4ce565f9-d21f-039f-8f5a-2e16e6aa1ae4@redhat.com>
<e103a8a1-a6f1-5709-6ac6-95684fd5bff2@2ndquadrant.com>
<be5cd0aa-304f-1b9f-68b4-0c747c67f73b@redhat.com>
<D09B13F772D2274BB348A310EE3027C64146AF@g01jpexmbkw24>
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 12:35:30AM +0000, Jamison, Kirk wrote:
> I just checked the patch.
> As per advice, you removed the versioning and specified --jobs.
> The patch still applies, builds and passed the tests successfully.
I would document the optional VACUUM_OPTS on the page of pg_upgrade.
If Peter thinks it is fine to not do so, that's fine for me as well.
It seems to me that the latest patch sent is incorrect for multiple
reasons:
1) You still enforce -j to use the number of jobs that the caller of
pg_upgrade provides, and we agreed that both things are separate
concepts upthread, no? What has been suggested by Alvaro is to add a
comment so as one can use VACUUM_OPTS with -j optionally, instead of
suggesting a full-fledged vacuumdb command which depends on what
pg_upgrade uses. So there is no actual need for the if/else
complication business.
2) Perhaps we need to worry about the second vacuumdb --all command,
which may want custom options, which are not necessarily the same as
the options of the first command? I don't think we need to care as it
applies only to an upgraded cluster using something older 8.4, just
wondering..
--
Michael
Attachments:
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 832B) download
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: michael@paquier.xyz, k.jamison@jp.fujitsu.com, jesper.pedersen@redhat.com, peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com, fabriziomello@gmail.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, bruce@momjian.us
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade: Pass -j down to vacuumdb
In-Reply-To: <20190129050830.GE3121@paquier.xyz>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox