Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Pg_upgrade speed for many tables

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Pg_upgrade speed for many tables
Date: 2012-11-05 20:23:04
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > Magnus reported that a customer with a million tables was finding
> > pg_upgrade slow.
> You sure there's not an O(N^2) issue in there somewhere?

> > I don't see anything unsafe about having pg_upgrade use
> > synchronous_commit=off.
> No objection, but this seems unlikely to be better than linear speedup,
> with a not-terribly-large constant factor.
> BTW, does pg_upgrade run pg_restore in --single-transaction mode?
> That would probably make synchronous_commit moot, at least for that
> step.

It doesn't use pg_restore at all - it uses the dump from pg_dumpall, which
you can't reload with pg_restore.

 Magnus Hagander

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2012-11-05 20:30:32
Subject: Re: Pg_upgrade speed for many tables
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2012-11-05 20:19:01
Subject: Re: Limiting the number of parameterized indexpaths created

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group