| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2024-03-27 14:54:05 |
| Message-ID: | 3304322.1711551245@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> What is the status of this? In the commitfest, this patch is marked as
> "Needs Review" with Nathan as reviewer - Nathan, were you going to take
> another look at this or was your mail from January 12th a full review?
In my mind the ball is in Nathan's court. I feel it's about
committable, but he might not agree.
> Also, is there a chance this is going to be back-patched?
No chance of that I'm afraid. The patch bumps the archive version
number, because it creates TOC entries that older pg_restore would
not know what to do with. We can't put that kind of compatibility
break into stable branches.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-03-27 14:59:06 | Re: Remove some redundant set_cheapest() calls |
| Previous Message | Jelte Fennema-Nio | 2024-03-27 14:43:28 | Re: Possibility to disable `ALTER SYSTEM` |