| From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Kumar, Sachin" <ssetiya(at)amazon(dot)com>, Robins Tharakan <tharakan(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jan Wieck <jan(at)wi3ck(dot)info>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, 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: | 2024-03-27 09:53:51 |
| Message-ID: | a71f1582102a9fafcdf98094b8a221c5438e0b42.camel@cybertec.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2024-03-27 at 10:20 +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> Also, is there a chance this is going to be back-patched? I guess it
> would be enough if the ugprade target is v17 so it is less of a concern,
> but it would be nice if people with millions of large objects are not
> stuck until they are ready to ugprade to v17.
It is a quite invasive patch, and it adds new features (pg_restore in
bigger transaction patches), so I think this is not for backpatching,
desirable as it may seem from the usability angle.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bertrand Drouvot | 2024-03-27 10:11:58 | Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2024-03-27 09:47:54 | Re: Properly pathify the union planner |