Re: Horribly slow pg_upgrade performance with many Large Objects

From: Hannu Krosing <hannuk(at)google(dot)com>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Nitin Motiani <nitinmotiani(at)google(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Horribly slow pg_upgrade performance with many Large Objects
Date: 2025-07-21 00:03:45
Message-ID: CAMT0RQQmc5KKCYUG4Qa1R2L-Yar=7p_pEROLrEy_SSNkG6eRNw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Do you think the current patch could be backported to at least some
latest versions ?

On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 6:05 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Committed.
>
> I'm cautiously optimistic that we can find some better gains for upgrades
> from v16 and newer. That would involve dumping lo_create() commands for
> all LOs with comments/seclabels, dumping the relevant pg_shdepend rows, and
> then copying/linking the pg_largeobject_metadata files like we did prior to
> v12.
>
> --
> nathan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hannu Krosing 2025-07-21 00:15:27 Re: Support for 8-byte TOAST values (aka the TOAST infinite loop problem)
Previous Message Robert Treat 2025-07-20 23:54:38 Re: [PATCH] Proposal to Enable/Disable Index using ALTER INDEX