Re: pg_upgrade --copy-file-range
От | Thomas Munro |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_upgrade --copy-file-range |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+hUKGJvLLNQtzb=ZWcTsYF8kv8cR_=H17CX-eL8qNixeC4DAw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_upgrade --copy-file-range (Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_upgrade --copy-file-range
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jul 3, 2023 at 7:47 PM Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote: > When we added --clone, copy_file_range() was available, but the problem > was that it was hard for the user to predict whether you'd get the fast > clone behavior or the slow copy behavior. That's the kind of thing you > want to know when planning and testing your upgrade. At the time, there > were patches passed around in Linux kernel circles that would have been > able to enforce cloning via the flags argument of copy_file_range(), but > that didn't make it to the mainline. > > So, yes, being able to specify exactly which copy mechanism to use makes > sense, so that users can choose the tradeoffs. Thanks for looking. Yeah, it is quite inconvenient for planning purposes that it is hard for a user to know which internal strategy it uses, but that's the interface we have (and clearly "flags" is reserved for future usage so that might still evolve..). > About your patch: > > I think you should have a "check" function called from > check_new_cluster(). That check function can then also handle the "not > supported" case, and you don't need to handle that in > parseCommandLine(). I suggest following the clone example for these, > since the issues there are very similar. Done.
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: