Re: 15 pg_upgrade with -j

From: "Peter J(dot) Holzer" <hjp-pgsql(at)hjp(dot)at>
To: pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 15 pg_upgrade with -j
Date: 2023-05-23 20:33:05
Message-ID: 20230523203305.o4oahw2zpyxs4nju@hjp.at
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On 2023-05-23 13:17:24 -0500, Ron wrote:
> On 5/23/23 12:19, Peter J. Holzer wrote:
> > On 2023-05-22 21:10:48 -0500, Ron wrote:
> > > On 5/22/23 18:42, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > > It looks like the assumption was that issuing link()
^^^^^^
> > > > requests in parallel wouldn't help much but just swamp your disk
> > > > if they're all on the same filesystem.
> > > > Maybe that could use rethinking, not sure.
> > > It does need rethinking in the era of VMs and SANs. /var/lib/pgsql/15 is
> > > going to be on a different LUN from /var/lib/pgsql/9.6
> > You can't hardlink between different file systems.
>
> We'd never hardlink.

But that was what Jeff and Tom were talking about. If you are changing
the subject you should at least make it explicit.

hp

--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | Story must make more sense than reality.
|_|_) | |
| | | hjp(at)hjp(dot)at | -- Charles Stross, "Creative writing
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | challenge!"

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ron 2023-05-23 22:08:00 Re: 15 pg_upgrade with -j
Previous Message Christoph Moench-Tegeder 2023-05-23 18:58:23 Re: 15 pg_upgrade with -j