Re: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects

From: Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Robins Tharakan <tharakan(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: 2021-03-24 16:04:26
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 3/23/21 4:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info> writes:
>> Have we even reached a consensus yet on that doing it the way, my patch
>> is proposing, is the right way to go? Like that emitting BLOB TOC
>> entries into SECTION_DATA when in binary upgrade mode is a good thing?
>> Or that bunching all the SQL statements for creating the blob, changing
>> the ACL and COMMENT and SECLABEL all in one multi-statement-query is.
> Now you're asking for actual review effort, which is a little hard
> to come by towards the tail end of the last CF of a cycle. I'm
> interested in this topic, but I can't justify spending much time
> on it right now.


In any case I changed the options so that they behave the same way, the
existing -o and -O (for old/new postmaster options) work. I don't think
it would be wise to have option forwarding work differently between
options for postmaster and options for pg_dump/pg_restore.

Regards, Jan

Jan Wieck
Principle Database Engineer
Amazon Web Services

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2021-03-24 16:05:15 Re: default result formats setting
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2021-03-24 16:02:00 Re: Feature improvement: can we add queryId for pg_catalog.pg_stat_activity view?