pg_upgrade vs. pg_ctl stop -m fast
In 9.5, the default pg_ctl stop mode was changed from "smart" to "fast".
In pg_upgrade, there is this code:
void
stop_postmaster(bool fast)
{
...
exec_prog(SERVER_STOP_LOG_FILE, NULL, !fast,
"\"%s/pg_ctl\" -w -D \"%s\" -o \"%s\" %s stop",
cluster->bindir, cluster->pgconfig,
cluster->pgopts ? cluster->pgopts : "",
fast ? "-m fast" : "");
...
}
So, when upgrading from 9.5 or later, code that requested a non-fast
shutdown would now always get a fast shutdown.
I think the last line should be changed to something like
fast ? "-m fast" : "-m smart");
--
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
Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> 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
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:17:52AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> 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 <bruce@momjian.us> 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
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:
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
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
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
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 <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> 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