Re: Horribly slow pg_upgrade performance with many Large Objects

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Hannu Krosing <hannuk(at)google(dot)com>
Cc: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Horribly slow pg_upgrade performance with many Large Objects
Date: 2025-04-08 16:37:43
Message-ID: 4047312.1744130263@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hannu Krosing <hannuk(at)google(dot)com> writes:
> I think we do preserve role oids

Oh ... I'd been looking for mentions of "role" in
pg_upgrade_support.c, but what I should have looked for was
"pg_authid". So yeah, we do preserve role OIDs, and maybe that's
enough to make this workable, at least with source versions that
share the same rules for what goes into pg_largeobject_metadata and
pg_shdepend. It's not something I'd risk back-patching though.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nico Williams 2025-04-08 16:39:22 Re: Feature freeze
Previous Message Wolfgang Walther 2025-04-08 16:35:05 Re: [PoC] Federated Authn/z with OAUTHBEARER