| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pg_dump/restore failure (dependency?) on BF serinus |
| Date: | 2025-04-08 04:48:34 |
| Message-ID: | 3889418.1744087714@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2025-04-08 00:11:55 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> This feels quite adjacent to my complaint here:
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2045026.1743801143%40sss.pgh.pa.us
>> though perhaps it's not exactly the same.
> That does sound rather plausible. What an odd coincidence that it failed like
> that so close to your email. While this specific failure probably couldn't
> have happened much earlier, it seems that it could have as part of pg_upgrade
> for longer.
I think pg_upgrade is not vulnerable to the problem, or at least not
the identical problem, because it doesn't expect pg_restore to load
table data. So I think we didn't previously have any test cases
that would expose this :-(. What I find surprising is that we
didn't get field reports much sooner.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2025-04-08 04:52:12 | Re: Horribly slow pg_upgrade performance with many Large Objects |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2025-04-08 04:32:36 | Re: Proposal - Allow extensions to set a Plan Identifier |