From: | "Tharakan, Robins" <tharar(at)amazon(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | RE: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects |
Date: | 2021-03-08 11:00:43 |
Message-ID: | dcf993f10e344cadb762cb17be895cfe@EX13D05UWC001.ant.amazon.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thanks Daniel for the input / next-steps.
I see that 'master' too has this same magic constant [1] and so I expect it
to have similar restrictions, although I haven't tested this yet.
I do agree that the need then is to re-submit a patch that works with
'master'. (I am travelling the next few days but) Unless discussions go
tangential, I expect to revert with an updated patch by the end of this week
and create a commitfest entry while at it.
Reference:
1)
https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob/master/src/bin/pg_resetwal/pg_rese
twal.c#L444
-
Robins Tharakan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
> Sent: Monday, 8 March 2021 9:42 AM
> To: Tharakan, Robins <tharar(at)amazon(dot)com>
> Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects
>
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and
> know the content is safe.
>
>
>
> > On 7 Mar 2021, at 09:43, Tharakan, Robins <tharar(at)amazon(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > The patch (attached):
> > - Applies cleanly on REL9_6_STABLE -
> > c7a4fc3dd001646d5938687ad59ab84545d5d043
>
> Did you target 9.6 because that's where you want to upgrade to, or is
> this not a problem on HEAD? If it's still a problem on HEAD you should
> probably submit the patch against there. You probably also want to add
> it to the next commit fest to make sure it's not forgotten about:
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/33/
>
> > I am not married to the patch (especially the argument name) but
> > ideally I'd prefer a way to get this upgrade going without a patch.
> > For now, I am unable to find any other way to upgrade a v9.5 Postgres
> > database in this scenario, facing End-of-Life.
>
> It's obviously not my call to make in any shape or form, but this doesn't
> really seem to fall under what is generally backported into a stable
> release?
>
> --
> Daniel Gustafsson https://vmware.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tharakan, Robins | 2021-03-08 11:02:04 | Re: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2021-03-08 10:53:57 | Re: Occasional tablespace.sql failures in check-world -jnn |