Re: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects

From: Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 10:54:54
Message-ID: 6603fafe.050a0220.48abe.5d5b@mx.google.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 10:53:51AM +0100, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-03-27 at 10:20 +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > Also, is there a chance this is going to be back-patched? I guess it
> > would be enough if the ugprade target is v17 so it is less of a concern,
> > but it would be nice if people with millions of large objects are not
> > stuck until they are ready to ugprade to v17.
>
> It is a quite invasive patch, and it adds new features (pg_restore in
> bigger transaction patches), so I think this is not for backpatching,
> desirable as it may seem from the usability angle.

Right, I forgot about those changes, makes sense.

Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jakub Wartak 2024-03-27 11:05:24 Re: pg_combinebackup --copy-file-range
Previous Message David Rowley 2024-03-27 10:34:09 Re: Properly pathify the union planner