Subject: Re: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Zhihong Yu <zyu@yugabyte.com>,
 Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>,
 Robins Tharakan <tharakan@gmail.com>,
 Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>,
 "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
References: <181907.1616253799@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <147fa478-510b-18ef-5323-9c1725b2493c@wi3ck.info>
 <c2a43a97-e551-ea6d-7a4f-a4709b4e0cbd@dunslane.net>
 <5bdcb010-ecdd-c69a-b441-68002fc38483@wi3ck.info>
 <ee7d96b8-7b0e-bb76-9724-900606efe69a@dunslane.net>
 <CALNJ-vSPnudYcS8YowHeq7VAf7PBRyu0vpsbmb_VvTJgguVyHA@mail.gmail.com>
 <3886649c-c77d-dfd7-08a4-d1606bc71254@wi3ck.info>
 <91ccdb0d-42fd-7413-4e7c-3d6445655d2e@wi3ck.info>
 <20210323145628.GD579@momjian.us>
 <8d8d3961-8e8b-3dbe-f911-6f418c5fb1d3@wi3ck.info>
 <20210323180646.GG579@momjian.us>
 <91b02dc1-f0d9-e50d-849c-18d9a66484fb@wi3ck.info>
 <985941.1616524546@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Jan Wieck <jan@wi3ck.info>
Message-ID: <c0f5fde5-5cad-65ed-dd30-cd852301d074@wi3ck.info>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 14:54:29 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <985941.1616524546@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/c0f5fde5-5cad-65ed-dd30-cd852301d074%40wi3ck.info>
Precedence: bulk

On 3/23/21 2:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jan Wieck <jan@wi3ck.info> writes:
>> So the question remains, how do we name this?
> 
>>      --pg-dump-options "<string>"
>>      --pg-restore-options "<string>"
> 
> If you're passing multiple options, that is
> 
> 	--pg-dump-options "--foo=x --bar=y"
> 
> it seems just horribly fragile.  Lose the double quotes and suddenly
> --bar is a separate option to pg_upgrade itself, not part of the argument
> for the previous option.  That's pretty easy to do when passing things
> through shell scripts, too.  So it'd likely be safer to write
> 
> 	--pg-dump-option=--foo=x --pg-dump-option=--bar=y
> 
> which requires pg_upgrade to allow aggregating multiple options,
> but you'd probably want it to act that way anyway.

... which would be all really easy if pg_upgrade wouldn't be assembling 
a shell script string to pass into parallel_exec_prog() by itself.

But I will see what I can do ...


Regards, Jan


-- 
Jan Wieck
Principle Database Engineer
Amazon Web Services