| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade on high number tables database issues |
| Date: | 2014-03-10 19:11:24 |
| Message-ID: | 20140310191124.GB16713@momjian.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 07:40:42PM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> Yes, I assume 9.3 will be much better, though Jeff is right that if it
> is pg_dump locking that is hurting you, you might not see a win even in
> 9.3.
>
>
> I'll see it next year when we plan to migrate to 9.4
>
> I though so some form of "superlock" can be interesting, because nobody can
> work with database when it is upgraded.
Remember pg_upgrade is using pg_dump, which then connecting to a
backend, so passing that super-lock mode there is not ideal. The fixes
in 9.3 improve locking in all user cases, not just upgrades.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2014-03-10 19:12:20 | Re: pg_upgrade on high number tables database issues |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-03-10 19:09:41 | Re: extension_control_path |