Re: Further pg_upgrade analysis for many tables

On Sunday, January 20, 2013, Stephen Frost wrote:

> * Jeff Janes (jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com <javascript:;>) wrote:
>

> > By making the list over-flowable, we fix a demonstrated pathological
> > workload (restore of huge schemas); we impose no detectable penalty to
> > normal workloads; and we fail to improve, but also fail to make worse, a
> > hypothetical pathological workload. All at the expense of a few bytes
> per
> > backend.
> [...]
> > > Why does the list not grow as needed?
> >
> > It would increase the code complexity for no concretely-known benefit.
>
> I'm curious if this is going to help with rollback's of transactions
> which created lots of tables..? We've certainly seen that take much
> longer than we'd like, although I've generally attributed it to doing
> all of the unlink'ing and truncating of files.
>

If you are using large shared_buffers, then you will probably get more
benefit from a different recent commit:

279628a Accelerate end-of-transaction dropping of relations.

Cheers,

Jeff