Re: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jan Wieck
Subject Re: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects
Date
Msg-id 91b02dc1-f0d9-e50d-849c-18d9a66484fb@wi3ck.info
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Responses Re: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Re: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 3/23/21 2:06 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> We have the postmaster which can pass arbitrary arguments to postgres
> processes using -o.

Right, and -o is already taken in pg_upgrade for sending options to the 
old postmaster.

What we are looking for are options for sending options to pg_dump and 
pg_restore, which are not postmasters or children of postmaster, but 
rather clients. There is no option to send options to clients of 
postmasters.

So the question remains, how do we name this?

     --pg-dump-options "<string>"
     --pg-restore-options "<string>"

where "<string>" could be something like "--whatever[=NUM] [...]" would 
be something unambiguous.


Regards, Jan

-- 
Jan Wieck
Principle Database Engineer
Amazon Web Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Denis Hirn
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Allow multiple recursive self-references
Next
From: "Bossart, Nathan"
Date:
Subject: Re: Change default of checkpoint_completion_target