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.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
