Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade vs. pg_ctl stop -m fast
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade vs. pg_ctl stop -m fast |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 5516.1484320048@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade vs. pg_ctl stop -m fast (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Список | 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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: