Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade vs. pg_ctl stop -m fast - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade vs. pg_ctl stop -m fast
Date
Msg-id 5516.1484320048@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade vs. pg_ctl stop -m fast  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 1/12/17 9:43 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:17:52AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>>>> I think the last line should be changed to something like
>>>> fast ? "-m fast" : "-m smart");

>>> There is maybe room for a separate discussion about whether pg_upgrade
>>> *should* be using fast mode, but if so we could remove the "bool fast"
>>> argument from this function altogether.

>> Agreed, it should be remove.  Should I do it?

> For 9.5 and 9.6, I think we should backpatch what I suggested above, to
> minimize the behavior change.  For master we can consider removing the
> distinction and just use fast shutdown all the time, but I haven't
> checked all the possible implications of that change.

That sounds sensible to me.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal