Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] pg_upgrade -u
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 11:59:58PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 6/28/13 9:43 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 09:15:31PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >> On 6/28/13 6:06 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 09:44:00AM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 5/28/13 10:55 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Wow, I never realized other tools used -U for user, instead of -u. > > Should I change pg_upgrade to use -U for 9.4? I can keep supporting -u > > as an undocumented option. > > It seems to me that that option shouldn't be necessary anyway. > pg_upgrade should somehow be able to find out by itself what the > superuser of the old cluster was. > >>> > >>> Uh, any idea how to do that? > >> > >> select rolname from pg_authid where oid = 10; > > > > Uh, how do I know what username to connect as to issue that query? > > single-user mode? Yes, but single-user mode is a whole new set of problems. -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- 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] [GENERAL] pg_upgrade -u
On 6/28/13 9:43 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 09:15:31PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On 6/28/13 6:06 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 09:44:00AM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On 5/28/13 10:55 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Wow, I never realized other tools used -U for user, instead of -u. > Should I change pg_upgrade to use -U for 9.4? I can keep supporting -u > as an undocumented option. It seems to me that that option shouldn't be necessary anyway. pg_upgrade should somehow be able to find out by itself what the superuser of the old cluster was. >>> >>> Uh, any idea how to do that? >> >> select rolname from pg_authid where oid = 10; > > Uh, how do I know what username to connect as to issue that query? single-user mode? -- 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] [GENERAL] pg_upgrade -u
Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 6/28/13 6:06 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 09:44:00AM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>> pg_upgrade should somehow be able to find out by itself what the >>> superuser of the old cluster was. >> Uh, any idea how to do that? > select rolname from pg_authid where oid = 10; But that only works if you've already been able to connect, no? 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] [GENERAL] pg_upgrade -u
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 09:15:31PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 6/28/13 6:06 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 09:44:00AM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >> On 5/28/13 10:55 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > >>> Wow, I never realized other tools used -U for user, instead of -u. > >>> Should I change pg_upgrade to use -U for 9.4? I can keep supporting -u > >>> as an undocumented option. > >> > >> It seems to me that that option shouldn't be necessary anyway. > >> pg_upgrade should somehow be able to find out by itself what the > >> superuser of the old cluster was. > > > > Uh, any idea how to do that? > > select rolname from pg_authid where oid = 10; Uh, how do I know what username to connect as to issue that query? -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- 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] [GENERAL] pg_upgrade -u
On 6/28/13 6:06 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 09:44:00AM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On 5/28/13 10:55 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: >>> Wow, I never realized other tools used -U for user, instead of -u. >>> Should I change pg_upgrade to use -U for 9.4? I can keep supporting -u >>> as an undocumented option. >> >> It seems to me that that option shouldn't be necessary anyway. >> pg_upgrade should somehow be able to find out by itself what the >> superuser of the old cluster was. > > Uh, any idea how to do that? select rolname from pg_authid where oid = 10; -- 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] [GENERAL] pg_upgrade -u
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 08:42:21AM -0400, Ray Stell wrote:
>
> On May 29, 2013, at 11:07 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 08:59:42AM -0400, Ray Stell wrote:
> >>> [ moved to hacker ] The question is whether hard-wiring these
> >>> helps more than it hurts, and which ones should be hard-wired.
>
> I seems to me that superuser is exactly that special case and that if
> an alternate superuser is hardwired in the src cluster then -u/-U and
> that specific value will be required on both sides of pg_upgrade, no
> variability is needed and perhaps not possible. You're point is well
> taken for port.
You have convinced me. The attached, applied patch for PG 9.4 passes
the command-line-supplied username into the created analyze script.
I have also attached a sample output analyze script.
--
Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
diff --git a/contrib/pg_upgrade/check.c b/contrib/pg_upgrade/check.c
new file mode 100644
index 1f67e60..0376fcb
*** a/contrib/pg_upgrade/check.c
--- b/contrib/pg_upgrade/check.c
*** void
*** 459,464
--- 459,471
create_script_for_cluster_analyze(char **analyze_script_file_name)
{
FILE *script = NULL;
+ char *user_specification = "";
+
+ if (os_info.user_specified)
+ {
+ user_specification = pg_malloc(strlen(os_info.user) + 7);
+ sprintf(user_specification, "-U \"%s\" ", os_info.user);
+ }
*analyze_script_file_name = pg_malloc(MAXPGPATH);
*** create_script_for_cluster_analyze(char *
*** 501,507
ECHO_QUOTE, ECHO_QUOTE);
fprintf(script, "echo %sthis script and run:%s\n",
ECHO_QUOTE, ECHO_QUOTE);
! fprintf(script, "echo %s\"%s/vacuumdb\" --all %s%s\n", ECHO_QUOTE, new_cluster.bindir,
/* Did we copy the free space files? */
(GET_MAJOR_VERSION(old_cluster.major_version) >= 804) ?
"--analyze-only" : "--analyze", ECHO_QUOTE);
--- 508,515
ECHO_QUOTE, ECHO_QUOTE);
fprintf(script, "echo %sthis script and run:%s\n",
ECHO_QUOTE, ECHO_QUOTE);
! fprintf(script, "echo %s\"%s/vacuumdb\" %s--all %s%s\n", ECHO_QUOTE,
! new_cluster.bindir, user_specification,
/* Did we copy the free space files? */
(GET_MAJOR_VERSION(old_cluster.major_version) >= 804) ?
"--analyze-only" : "--analyze", ECHO_QUOTE);
*** create_script_for_cluster_analyze(char *
*** 522,528
ECHO_QUOTE, ECHO_QUOTE);
fprintf(script, "echo %s--%s\n",
ECHO_QUOTE, ECHO_QUOTE);
! fprintf(script, "\"%s/vacuumdb\" --all --analyze-only\n", new_cluster.bindir);
fprintf(script, "echo%s\n", ECHO_BLANK);
fprintf(script, "echo %sThe server is now available with minimal optimizer statistics.%s\n",
ECHO_QUOTE, ECHO_QUOTE);
--- 530,537
ECHO_QUOTE, ECHO_QUOTE);
fprintf(script, "echo %s--%s\n",
ECHO_QUOTE, ECHO_QUOTE);
! fprintf(script, "\"%s/vacuumdb\" %s--all --analyze-only\n",
! new_cluster.bindir, user_specification);
fprintf(script, "echo%s\n", ECHO_BLANK);
fprintf(script, "echo %sThe server is now available with minimal optimizer statistics.%s\n",
ECHO_QUOTE, ECHO_QUOTE);
*** create_script_for_cluster_analyze(char *
*** 543,549
ECHO_QUOTE, ECHO_QUOTE);
fprintf(script, "echo %s---%s\n",
ECHO_QUOTE, ECHO_QUOTE);
! fprintf(script, "\"%s/vacuumdb\" --all --analyze-only\n", new_cluster.bindir);
fprintf(script, "echo%s\n\n", ECHO_BLANK);
#ifndef WIN32
--- 552,559
ECHO_QUOTE, ECHO_QUOTE);
fprintf(script, "echo %s---%s\n",
ECHO_QUOTE, ECHO_QUOTE);
! fprintf(script, "\"%s/vacuumdb\" %s--all --analyze-only\n",
! new_cluster.bindir, user_specification);
fprintf(script, "echo%s\n\n", ECHO_BLANK);
#ifndef WIN32
*** create_script_for_cluster_analyze(char *
*** 556,562
ECHO_QUOTE, ECHO_QUOTE);
fprintf(script, "echo %s-%s\n",
ECHO_QUOTE, ECHO_QUOTE);
! fprintf(script, "\"%s/vacuumdb\" --all %s\n", new_cluster.bindir,
/* Did we copy the free space files? */
(GET_MAJOR_VERSION(old_cluster.major_version) >= 804) ?
"--analyze-only" : "--analyze");
--- 566,573
ECHO_QUOTE, ECHO_QUOTE);
fprintf(script, "echo %s-%s\n",
ECHO_QUOTE, ECHO_QUOTE);
! fprintf(script, "\"%s/vacuumdb\" %s--all %s\n", new_cluster.bindir,
! user_specification,
/* Did we copy the free space files? */
(GET_MAJOR_VERSION(old_cluster.major_version) >= 804) ?
"--analyze-only" : "--analyze");
*** create_script_for_cluster_analyze(char *
*** 573,578
--- 584,592
*analyze_script_fi
Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] pg_upgrade -u
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 09:44:00AM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 5/28/13 10:55 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Wow, I never realized other tools used -U for user, instead of -u. > > Should I change pg_upgrade to use -U for 9.4? I can keep supporting -u > > as an undocumented option. > > It seems to me that that option shouldn't be necessary anyway. > pg_upgrade should somehow be able to find out by itself what the > superuser of the old cluster was. Uh, any idea how to do that? -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- 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] [GENERAL] pg_upgrade -u
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 09:08:03PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > On 05/28/2013 07:55 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > >>Perhaps just documenting the behavior is all that is needed, but -U is > >>everywhere and I think that's a good thing. > > > >[ moved to hacker ] > > > >Wow, I never realized other tools used -U for user, instead of -u. > >Should I change pg_upgrade to use -U for 9.4? I can keep supporting -u > >as an undocumented option. > > Yes, -U makes the most sense as that is what is used with the other > tools. I think you should just drop -u, this isn't something people > are doing everyday (like psql). The backward compatibility argument > is pretty slim. Done for 9.4. I also simplified some of the option values in --help and the docs. -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- 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] [GENERAL] pg_upgrade -u
On May 29, 2013, at 11:07 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 08:59:42AM -0400, Ray Stell wrote: >>> [ moved to hacker ] >>> The question is whether hard-wiring these helps more than it hurts, and >>> which ones should be hard-wired. I seems to me that superuser is exactly that special case and that if an alternate superuser is hardwired in the src cluster then -u/-U and that specific value will be required on both sides of pg_upgrade, no variability is needed and perhaps not possible. You're point is well taken for port. -- 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] [GENERAL] pg_upgrade -u
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 08:59:42AM -0400, Ray Stell wrote: > > [ moved to hacker ] > > > > Wow, I never realized other tools used -U for user, instead of -u. > > Should I change pg_upgrade to use -U for 9.4? I can keep supporting > > -u as an undocumented option. > > That would make for consistency, but not change the broken behavior. > Comments on this below. > > > > I have applied the attached patch to document that you might need to > > set connection parameters for vacuumdb. > > That will work as this is not a big deal, but have to admit, I didn't > understand the logic you posted in your question. If the src cluster > has a alternate superuser (from initdb -U), and the the pg_upgrade > command has to be supplied a -u/-U in order to work with the src > cluster, why would you assume somehow the output cluster has changed > to the default superuser when you build the vacuum script on the > other side of pg_upgrade? Is that even possible to accomplish? Your > statement about "forcing the values" throws me, as it seems to me the > user is requesting the variation. I have not dug into pg_upgrade's > guts, so I may just be uninformed. OK, so let's look again at what you can supply to pg_upgrade for new cluster connections: -O, --new-options=OPTIONS new cluster options to pass to the server -P, --new-port=NEWPORTnew cluster port number (default 50432) -u, --user=NAME cluster superuser (default "postgres") So, probably all of these _could_ be propagated to created scripts, like analyze_new_cluster.sh. However, if we do that, we hardwire these values into the script, meaning you can't override them with environment variables like PGUSER. The question is whether hard-wiring these helps more than it hurts, and which ones should be hard-wired. One new idea would be to add "$@" to the vacuumdb script parameters so users could supply their own "-U myuser" options to the script. That is easy to do for Unix, which I assume all support "$@", but perhaps hard for Windows. -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- 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] [GENERAL] pg_upgrade -u
On 5/28/13 10:55 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Wow, I never realized other tools used -U for user, instead of -u. > Should I change pg_upgrade to use -U for 9.4? I can keep supporting -u > as an undocumented option. It seems to me that that option shouldn't be necessary anyway. pg_upgrade should somehow be able to find out by itself what the superuser of the old cluster was. -- 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] [GENERAL] pg_upgrade -u
On May 28, 2013, at 10:55 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 03:05:57PM -0400, Ray Stell wrote: >>> However, if we pass these items into the scripts, we then force >>> these values to be used, even if the user wants to use a different >>> value. It is a balance between supplying defaults vs. requiring the >>> user to supply or change the values used during the ugprade. >>> >>> At this point, I have favored _not_ supplying defaults in the >>> script. Do you have an alternative argument in favor of supplying >>> defaults? >> >> >> >> Well, the story really began when I ran initdb with a -U arg. vacuumdb >> takes the -U also, but pg_upgrade does not. >> >> It seems like if I have to supply a -u in order to get pg_upgrade >> to function in the case where there is no default superuser in the >> cluster, then an associated vacuumdb command requires a -U arg. >> >> Perhaps just documenting the behavior is all that is needed, but -U is >> everywhere and I think that's a good thing. > > [ moved to hacker ] > > Wow, I never realized other tools used -U for user, instead of -u. > Should I change pg_upgrade to use -U for 9.4? I can keep supporting -u > as an undocumented option. That would make for consistency, but not change the broken behavior. Comments on this below. > I have applied the attached patch to document that you might need to set > connection parameters for vacuumdb. That will work as this is not a big deal, but have to admit, I didn't understand the logic you posted in your question. If the src cluster has a alternate superuser (from initdb -U), and the the pg_upgrade command has to be supplied a -u/-U in order to work with the src cluster, why would you assume somehow the output cluster has changed to the default superuser when you build the vacuum script on the other side of pg_upgrade? Is that even possible to accomplish? Your statement about "forcing the values" throws me, as it seems to me the user is requesting the variation. I have not dug into pg_upgrade's guts, so I may just be uninformed. -- 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] [GENERAL] pg_upgrade -u
On 05/28/2013 07:55 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: Perhaps just documenting the behavior is all that is needed, but -U is everywhere and I think that's a good thing. [ moved to hacker ] Wow, I never realized other tools used -U for user, instead of -u. Should I change pg_upgrade to use -U for 9.4? I can keep supporting -u as an undocumented option. Yes, -U makes the most sense as that is what is used with the other tools. I think you should just drop -u, this isn't something people are doing everyday (like psql). The backward compatibility argument is pretty slim. JD -- 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] [GENERAL] pg_upgrade -u
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 03:05:57PM -0400, Ray Stell wrote: > > However, if we pass these items into the scripts, we then force > > these values to be used, even if the user wants to use a different > > value. It is a balance between supplying defaults vs. requiring the > > user to supply or change the values used during the ugprade. > > > > At this point, I have favored _not_ supplying defaults in the > > script. Do you have an alternative argument in favor of supplying > > defaults? > > > > Well, the story really began when I ran initdb with a -U arg. vacuumdb > takes the -U also, but pg_upgrade does not. > > It seems like if I have to supply a -u in order to get pg_upgrade > to function in the case where there is no default superuser in the > cluster, then an associated vacuumdb command requires a -U arg. > > Perhaps just documenting the behavior is all that is needed, but -U is > everywhere and I think that's a good thing. [ moved to hacker ] Wow, I never realized other tools used -U for user, instead of -u. Should I change pg_upgrade to use -U for 9.4? I can keep supporting -u as an undocumented option. I have applied the attached patch to document that you might need to set connection parameters for vacuumdb. -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/pgupgrade.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/pgupgrade.sgml new file mode 100644 index d676d28..4ac0e56 *** a/doc/src/sgml/pgupgrade.sgml --- b/doc/src/sgml/pgupgrade.sgml *** psql --username postgres --file script.s *** 442,448 Because optimizer statistics are not transferred by pg_upgrade, you will be instructed to run a command to regenerate that information at the end ! of the upgrade. --- 442,449 Because optimizer statistics are not transferred by pg_upgrade, you will be instructed to run a command to regenerate that information at the end ! of the upgrade. You might need to set connection parameters to ! match your new cluster. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
