On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 10:32 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> I don't think this vacuumdb feature should deal with any >>> version-conversion issues. So it sounds like the thing to do is keep the >>> wrapper script, which will give us a place to put any such special actions >>> without having to kluge up vacuumdb's behavior. That'll avoid breaking >>> scripts that users might've built for using pg_upgrade, too. > >> I guess I don't see what's wrong with kludging up vacuumdb. It's not >> like that's a very complicated utility; what will be hurt by a few >> more options? > > Carrying kluges forever, and exposing them to users' view. The particular > example Peter gave was only relevant to upgrades from 8.4; why would we be > putting code into vacuumdb now for that, and expecting to support it > forevermore? What if the code to fix up something doesn't even *work* > unless we're updating from version M.N? Putting such code into vacuumdb > means you have to make it bulletproof against other invocation > circumstances, and document what it does (since it's a user-visible > switch), and just in general greatly increases the development overhead.
I was referring to the analyze-in-stages logic, which is not specific to 8.4. I don't see a reason not to put that into vacuumdb. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
