回复:Re: speed up pg_upgrade with large number of tables

From: 杨伯宇(长堂) <yangboyu(dot)yby(at)alibaba-inc(dot)com>
To: "Daniel Gustafsson" <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: 回复:Re: speed up pg_upgrade with large number of tables
Date: 2024-07-05 09:24:42
Message-ID: b0ccd72a-ec6d-4612-a921-53ec62df882a.yangboyu.yby@alibaba-inc.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> > So, I'm thinking, why not add a "--skip-check" option in pg_upgrade to skip it?
> > See "1-Skip_Compatibility_Check_v1.patch".
>
> How would a user know that nothing has changed in the cluster between running
> the check and running the upgrade with a skipped check? Considering how
> complicated it is to understand exactly what pg_upgrade does it seems like
> quite a large caliber footgun.
Indeed, it's not feasible to execute an concise check ensuring that nothing
has changed. However, in many cases, a cluster consistently executes the
same SQL commands. Thus, if we've verified that the cluster was compatible
30 minutes prior, there's a strong likelihood that it remains compatible now.
Therefore, adding such an 'trust-me' option may still be beneficial.

> I would be much more interested in making the check phase go faster, and indeed
> there is ongoing work in this area. Since it sounds like you have a dev and
> test environment with a big workload, testing those patches would be helpful.
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/48/4995/ is one that comes to mind.
Very meaningful work! I will try it.

--
Best regards,
Yang Boyu

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) 2024-07-05 09:51:22 RE: Parallel heap vacuum
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2024-07-05 09:16:18 Re: Injection points: preloading and runtime arguments