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
It doesn't use pg_restore at all - it uses the dump from pg_dumpall, which
you can't reload with pg_restore.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2012-11-05 20:30:32|
|Subject: Re: Pg_upgrade speed for many tables|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2012-11-05 20:19:01|
|Subject: Re: Limiting the number of parameterized indexpaths created|