On 2019-Jan-25, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 25/01/2019 11:28, Michael Paquier wrote: > > based on that linking the value used by pg_upgrade and vacuumdb is a > > bad concept in my opinion, and the patch should be rejected. More > > documentation on pg_upgrade side to explain that a bit better could be > > a good idea though, as it is perfectly possible to use your own > > post-upgrade script or rewrite partially the generated one. > > Right. pg_upgrade doesn't actually call vacuumdb. It creates a script > that you may use. The script itself contains a comment that says, if > you want to do this as fast as possible, don't use this script. That > comment could be enhanced to suggest the use of the -j option.
So let's have it write with a $VACUUMDB_OPTS variable, which is by default defined as empty but with a comment suggesting that maybe the user wants to add the -j option. This way, if they have to edit it, they only have to edit the VACUUMDB_OPTS line instead of each of the two vacuumdb lines. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
