From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Robins Tharakan <tharakan(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects |
Date: | 2021-03-20 16:45:36 |
Message-ID: | 20210320164536.GB7968@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 11:23:19AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wonder if pg_dump could improve matters cheaply by aggregating the
> large objects by owner and ACL contents. That is, do
>
> select distinct lomowner, lomacl from pg_largeobject_metadata;
>
> and make just *one* BLOB TOC entry for each result. Then dump out
> all the matching blobs under that heading.
>
> A possible objection is that it'd reduce the ability to restore blobs
> selectively, so maybe we'd need to make it optional.
>
> Of course, that just reduces the memory consumption on the client
> side; it does nothing for the locks. Can we get away with releasing the
> lock immediately after doing an ALTER OWNER or GRANT/REVOKE on a blob?
Well, in pg_upgrade mode you can, since there are no other cluster
users, but you might be asking for general pg_dump usage.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
If only the physical world exists, free will is an illusion.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-03-20 16:53:40 | Re: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2021-03-20 16:13:03 | Re: pspg pager is finished |