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
