From: | Jef Mortelle <jefmortelle(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Scott Ribe <scott_ribe(at)elevated-dev(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Upgrade from PG12 to PG |
Date: | 2023-07-24 13:00:48 |
Message-ID: | f22e1380-12eb-10ed-5b3d-cd6b0b6a6324@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
correction: -k = --link
On 24/07/2023 14:59, Jef Mortelle wrote:
> Hello
>
> This is the syntax:
>
> export PGDATA=/pg/PG15/system
> export PATH=/usr/lib/postgresql15/bin:/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/bin
>
> export PGDATAOLD=/pg/data
> export PGDATANEW=/pg/PG15/system
> export PGBINOLD=/usr/lib/postgresql12/bin
> export PGBINNEW=/usr/lib/postgresql15/bin
>
> /usr/lib/postgresql15/bin/pg_upgrade -r -v -p 5431 -P 5432 -k -j 8
>
> -r =--link
>
> Kind regards
>
> On 24/07/2023 14:52, Scott Ribe wrote:
>>> On Jul 24, 2023, at 12:38 AM, Jef Mortelle <jefmortelle(at)gmail(dot)com>
>>> wrote:
>>> For some reason Postgres creates a new subdirectory for each PG
>>> version (I make use of tablespaces for each database in my PG
>>> cluster), also with using the link option.
>>> So after some upgrade, it ends in a really mess with directory's?
>> At the end of pg_upgrade, you can start up the old version against
>> the old directory, or the new version against the new directory.
>> (With --link, only until writing into the db, then you are committed
>> to the running version.) Once you are comfortable that everything is
>> good with the new version, you should delete the old data.
>> Alternatively, if there is a problem forcing you back to the old
>> version, you delete the new data.
>>
>>> => pg_dump schema_only, after RAM upgrade from 8GB up to 64GB
>>> (otherwise the query against pg_largeobject ends in a OUT of Memory
>>> error) runs in about 3-4 minutes
>>> => pg_restore takes 7 hours, which is 99% used for executing the
>>> query like: SELECT pg_catalog.lo_unlink('oid');
>> Given the tests you've run, it seems to me that it is doing something
>> which it ought not when using --link.
>>
>>> Database is 95GB, so not so big ;-) but have ~25miljon large objects
>>> in it.
>> I suppose the use of large objects here is an artifact of support for
>> other databases which have much lower limits on varchar column length.
>>
>>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Erik Serrano | 2023-07-24 21:42:38 | Re: Is a PS - MSSQL Logical Replication Possible?? |
Previous Message | Jef Mortelle | 2023-07-24 12:59:29 | Re: Upgrade from PG12 to PG |