Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 14:08:30 +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>,
	"fabriziomello@gmail.com" <fabriziomello@gmail.com>,
	Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@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: <20190129050830.GE3121@paquier.xyz>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="so9zsI5B81VjUb/o"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <D09B13F772D2274BB348A310EE3027C64146AF@g01jpexmbkw24>
Precedence: bulk


--so9zsI5B81VjUb/o
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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.=20
> 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

--so9zsI5B81VjUb/o
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=JaFb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--so9zsI5B81VjUb/o--