Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@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.eisentr...@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
