Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > > Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 11:32 AM, Heikki Linnakangas > >> <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > >> >> ?I think the maintenance > >> >> overhead of an invisible variable is too much. > >> > > >> > A simple GUC or command-line switch isn't much code. > >> > >> I like the idea of a command-line switch. > > > > If you want to do that you should gereralize it as --binary-upgrade in > > case we have other needs for it. > > Yeah. Or we could do a binary_upgrade GUC which has the effect of > forcibly suppressing autovacuum, and maybe other things later. I > think that's a lot less hazardous than fiddling with the autovacuum > GUC.
I like the idea of a command-line flag because it forces everything to be affected, and cannot be turned on and off in sessions --- if you are doing a binary upgrade, locked-down is good. :-) -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> 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
