Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
> >> <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> >> >> ?I think the maintenance
> >> >> overhead of an invisible variable is too much.
> >> >
> >> > A simple GUC or command-line switch isn't much code.
> >>
> >> I like the idea of a command-line switch.
> >
> > If you want to do that you should gereralize it as --binary-upgrade in
> > case we have other needs for it.
>
> Yeah. Or we could do a binary_upgrade GUC which has the effect of
> forcibly suppressing autovacuum, and maybe other things later. I
> think that's a lot less hazardous than fiddling with the autovacuum
> GUC.
I like the idea of a command-line flag because it forces everything to
be affected, and cannot be turned on and off in sessions --- if you are
doing a binary upgrade, locked-down is good. :-)
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
