Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade vs. pg_ctl stop -m fast

2017-01-13 Thread Peter Eisentraut 
On 1/13/17 9:45 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> 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  writes:
 In 9.5, the default pg_ctl stop mode was changed from "smart" to "fast".
 In pg_upgrade, there is this code:
 ...
 I think the last line should be changed to something like
   fast ? "-m fast" : "-m smart");
>>>
>>> Ugh.  Clear oversight.
>>>
>>> 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.

I have committed that (including to master).

> 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.

I'm not planning to work on this at this time.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade vs. pg_ctl stop -m fast

2017-01-13 Thread Tom Lane 
Peter Eisentraut  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  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


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade vs. pg_ctl stop -m fast

2017-01-13 Thread Peter Eisentraut 
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  writes:
>>> In 9.5, the default pg_ctl stop mode was changed from "smart" to "fast".
>>> In pg_upgrade, there is this code:
>>> ...
>>> I think the last line should be changed to something like
>>>   fast ? "-m fast" : "-m smart");
>>
>> Ugh.  Clear oversight.
>>
>> 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.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade vs. pg_ctl stop -m fast

2017-01-12 Thread Bruce Momjian 
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:17:52AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut  writes:
> > In 9.5, the default pg_ctl stop mode was changed from "smart" to "fast".
> > In pg_upgrade, there is this code:
> > ...
> > I think the last line should be changed to something like
> >   fast ? "-m fast" : "-m smart");
> 
> Ugh.  Clear oversight.
> 
> 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?

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+  Ancient Roman grave inscription +


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] pg_upgrade vs. pg_ctl stop -m fast

2017-01-12 Thread Tom Lane 
Peter Eisentraut  writes:
> In 9.5, the default pg_ctl stop mode was changed from "smart" to "fast".
> In pg_upgrade, there is this code:
> ...
> I think the last line should be changed to something like
>   fast ? "-m fast" : "-m smart");

Ugh.  Clear oversight.

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.

regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers