Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 8:26 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> What's the argument against?
> Complexity for the bgw usecase.
They'd be completely different implementations and code paths, no?
For pg_upgrade to use such a thing it'd need to be a connection parameter
of some sort (implying, eg, infrastructure in libpq), while for a bgworker
there's no such animal as connection parameters because there's no
Certainly what pg_upgrade has to do is a bit ugly, but you'd be adding
an awful lot of code to get rid of a small amount of code. Doesn't
seem like a great tradeoff. Even if it is a good tradeoff, it seems
entirely unrelated to the bgworker's problem.
regards, tom lane