Re: pg_upgrade on high number tables database issues

From: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade on high number tables database issues
Date: 2014-03-10 16:54:36
Message-ID: CAMkU=1yMnhpBpPE3__CFPz+pyEm5capExRxo=ncnq5Smj2T2Kg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 6:58 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>wrote:

> Hello
>
> I had to migrate our databases from 9.1 to 9.2. We have high number of
> databases per cluster (more than 1000) and high number of tables (indexes)
> per database (sometimes more than 10K, exceptionally more than 100K).
>
> I seen two problems:
>
> a) too long files pg_upgrade_dump_db.sql, pg_upgrade_dump_all.sql in
> postgres HOME directory. Is not possible to change a directory for these
> files.
>

Those files should go into whatever your current directory is when you
execute pg_upgrade. Why not just cd into whatever directory you want them
to be in?

> b) very slow first stage of upgrade - schema export is very slow without
> high IO or CPU utilization.
>

Just the pg_upgrade executable has low IO and CPU utilization, or the
entire server does?

There were several bottlenecks in this area removed in 9.2 and 9.3.
Unfortunately the worst of those bottlenecks were in the server, so they
depend on what database you are upgrading from, and so won't help you much
upgrading from 9.1.

Cheers,

Jeff

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2014-03-10 18:07:13 Re: Retain dynamic shared memory segments for postmaster lifetime
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2014-03-10 16:44:15 Re: Retain dynamic shared memory segments for postmaster lifetime