| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreas(at)visena(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade not able to cope with pg_largeobject being in a different tablespace |
| Date: | 2016-10-13 14:09:34 |
| Message-ID: | 20161013140934.GA5250@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 10:14:08AM +0200, Andreas Joseph Krogh wrote:
> I would assume that having pg_largeobject in a separate tablespace is more and
> more common these days, having real-cheap SAN vs. fast-SSD for normal tables/
> indexes/wal.
So common that no one has ever asked for this feature before?
> So - I'm wondering if we can fund development of pg_upgrade to cope with this
> configuration or somehow motivate to getting this issue fixed?
>
> Would any of the PG-companies (2ndQ, EDB, PgPro) take a stab at this?
>
> Any feedback welcome, thanks.
You would need to get buy-in that that community wants the relocation of
pg_largeobject to be supported via an SQL command, and at that point
pg_upgrade would be modified to support that. It is unlikely pg_upgrade
is going to be modified to support something that isn't supported at the
SQL level. Of course, you can create a custom version of pg_upgrade to
do that.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andreas Joseph Krogh | 2016-10-13 14:35:35 | Re: pg_upgrade not able to cope with pg_largeobject being in a different tablespace |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-10-13 14:07:20 | Re: Passing of where clause to remote table in FDW |