Re: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Kumar, Sachin" <ssetiya(at)amazon(dot)com>, Robins Tharakan <tharakan(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info>, 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>, 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: 2024-01-26 16:44:26
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> CFBot shows that the patch does not apply anymore as in [1]:
> === Applying patches on top of PostgreSQL commit ID
> 46a0cd4cefb4d9b462d8cc4df5e7ecdd190bea92 ===
> === applying patch ./v9-005-parallel_pg_restore.patch
> patching file src/bin/pg_upgrade/pg_upgrade.c
> Hunk #3 FAILED at 650.
> 1 out of 3 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file
> src/bin/pg_upgrade/pg_upgrade.c.rej

That's because v9-005 was posted by itself. But I don't think
we should use it anyway.

Here's 0001-0004 again, updated to current HEAD (only line numbers
changed) and with Nathan's suggestion to define some macros for
the magic constants.

regards, tom lane

Attachment Content-Type Size
v10-0001-Some-small-preliminaries-for-pg_dump-changes.patch text/x-diff 5.9 KB
v10-0002-In-dumps-group-large-objects-into-matching-metad.patch text/x-diff 39.8 KB
v10-0003-Move-BLOBS-METADATA-TOC-entries-into-SECTION_DAT.patch text/x-diff 3.0 KB
v10-0004-Invent-transaction-size-option-for-pg_restore.patch text/x-diff 15.4 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2024-01-26 16:48:02 Re: Supporting MERGE on updatable views
Previous Message Robert Haas 2024-01-26 16:44:01 Re: Emit fewer vacuum records by reaping removable tuples during pruning