| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Kumar, Sachin" <ssetiya(at)amazon(dot)com>, Robins Tharakan <tharakan(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects |
| Date: | 2024-04-01 19:28:26 |
| Message-ID: | 1217588.1711999706@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Sorry for taking so long to get back to this one. Overall, I think the
> code is in decent shape.
Thanks for looking at it!
> The one design point that worries me a little is the non-configurability of
> --transaction-size in pg_upgrade. I think it's fine to default it to 1,000
> or something, but given how often I've had to fiddle with
> max_locks_per_transaction, I'm wondering if we might regret hard-coding it.
Well, we could add a command-line switch to pg_upgrade, but I'm
unconvinced that it'd be worth the trouble. I think a very large
fraction of users invoke pg_upgrade by means of packager-supplied
scripts that are unlikely to provide a way to pass through such
a switch. I'm inclined to say let's leave it as-is until we get
some actual field requests for a switch.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2024-04-01 19:37:18 | Re: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-04-01 19:24:15 | Re: Statistics Import and Export |