Re: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info>
Cc: Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: 2021-03-23 14:56:28
Message-ID: 20210323145628.GD579@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 08:51:32AM -0400, Jan Wieck wrote:
> On 3/22/21 7:18 PM, Jan Wieck wrote:
> > On 3/22/21 5:36 PM, Zhihong Yu wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > w.r.t. pg_upgrade_improvements.v2.diff.
> > >
> > > +       blobBatchCount = 0;
> > > +       blobInXact = false;
> > >
> > > The count and bool flag are always reset in tandem. It seems
> > > variable blobInXact is not needed.
> >
> > You are right. I will fix that.
>
> New patch v3 attached.

Would it be better to allow pg_upgrade to pass arbitrary arguments to
pg_restore, instead of just these specific ones?

--
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.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Japin Li 2021-03-23 15:08:43 Re: Support ALTER SUBSCRIPTION ... ADD/DROP PUBLICATION ... syntax
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2021-03-23 14:55:54 Re: ALTER TABLE .. DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY