Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: BUG #5735: pg_upgrade thinks that it did not start the old server

From: Arturas Mazeika <mazeika(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #5735: pg_upgrade thinks that it did not start the old server
Date: 2010-10-31 01:30:13
Message-ID: 4CCCC6A5.5000601@gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
Hi Dave,

Thanks for the info, this explains a lot.

Yes, I am upgrading from the 32bit version to the 64bit one.

We have pretty large databases  (some over 1 trillion of rows, and some 
containing large documents in blobs.) Giving a bit more memory than 4GB 
limit to Postgres was what we were long longing for. Postgres was able 
to handle large datasets (I suppose it uses something like long long 
(64bit) data type in C++) and I hoped naively that Postgres would be 
able to migrate from one version to the other without too much trouble.

I tried to pg_dump one of the DBs with large documents. I failed with 
out of memory error. I suppose it is rather hard to migrate in my case 
:-( Any suggestions?

Thanks,
arturas

On 10/30/2010 7:33 PM, Dave Page wrote:
> upgrade from a 32bit 8.3 server to a 64 bit 9.0 server, which isn't
> going to work without a dump/restore. With pg_upgrade, the two builds
> need to be from the same platform, same word size, and have the same
> configuration for certain settings like integer_datetimes.
>


In response to

Responses

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-10-31 14:52:12
Subject: Re: BUG #5733: Strange planer behaviour with inherited tables
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-10-30 20:43:01
Subject: Re: BUG #5736: 9.0.1 segmentation fault (sig11) during long-lived update

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group