| From: | Jacob Champion <jchampion(at)timescale(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: | 2022-09-08 23:29:10 |
| Message-ID: | CAAWbhmgUb8p7ff_ZX5jCvqM=ipPxbbDJTXMNVzH-Ho_CXVkRHA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 4:18 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> IIUC the main benefit of this approach is that it isn't dependent on
> binary-upgrade mode, which seems to be a goal based on the discussion
> upthread [0].
To clarify, I agree that pg_dump should contain the core fix. What I'm
questioning is the addition of --dump-options to make use of that fix
from pg_upgrade, since it also lets the user do "exciting" new things
like --exclude-schema and --include-foreign-data and so on. I don't
think we should let them do that without a good reason.
Thanks,
--Jacob
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2022-09-08 23:33:37 | Re: Reducing the chunk header sizes on all memory context types |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2022-09-08 23:18:07 | Re: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects |