From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | pg_upgrade patch application process, and move to /bin? |
Date: | 2010-10-20 19:01:37 |
Message-ID: | 201010201901.o9KJ1bj07391@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I received a private email report yesterday from someone using
> pg_upgrade with PG 9.0 who found it took five hours for pg_upgrade to
> upgrade a database with 150k tables. Yes, that is a lot of tables, but
> pg_upgrade should be able to do better than that.
>
> I have modified pg_upgrade in git master to cache scandir() and reduce
> array lookups and the time is down to 38 minutes. (He prototyped a hash
> implementation that was 30 minutes but it was too much code for my
> taste.)
>
> I don't think this is reasonable to backpatch. If anyone else sees
> cases for pg_upgrade improvement, please let me know.
One more question --- should I be sending pg_upgrade patches to the list
for approval? The restructuring patch was large and didn't seem
necessary to post, and the speedups were tested by the bug reporter, so
I figured those were OK to apply.
Oh, and do we want to move pg_upgrade into /bin for 9.1? There was
discussion about that six months ago.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Fetter | 2010-10-20 19:16:52 | Re: WIP: extensible enums |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-10-20 18:33:05 | pg_upgrade performance with 150k tables |