On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 12:14 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?
There certainly will be before he gets to a million, but it probably
doesn't show up yet testing at 2000.
He will probably have to hack pg_dump, as discussed here:
>> I don't see anything unsafe about having pg_upgrade use
> 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
Doing that might make the sync problem better, but would make the N^2
problem worse if upgrading to <= 9.2 .
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Merlin Moncure||Date: 2012-11-05 23:50:22|
|Subject: Re: What are the advantages of not being able to access
multiple databases with one connection?|
|Previous:||From: Palle Girgensohn||Date: 2012-11-05 22:52:21|
|Subject: Re: alter table tablename add column - breaks pl/pgsql function returns tablename|