Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TWCj3-0006Vs-LY for pgsql-admin@postgresql.org; Wed, 07 Nov 2012 20:59:53 +0000 Received: from momjian.us ([72.94.173.45]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TWCj0-0006UX-V7 for pgsql-admin@postgresql.org; Wed, 07 Nov 2012 20:59:53 +0000 Received: from bruce by momjian.us with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TWCj0-0004b1-Cv; Wed, 07 Nov 2012 15:59:50 -0500 Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 15:59:50 -0500 From: Bruce Momjian To: Lonni J Friedman Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org Subject: Re: pg_upgrade from 9.1 to 9.2 takes a really long time (compared to previous versions)? Message-ID: <20121107205950.GE26215@momjian.us> References: <20121107184232.GB19163@momjian.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--) X-Archive-Number: 201211/41 X-Sequence-Number: 40286 On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 10:44:12AM -0800, Lonni J Friedman wrote: > On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 02:44:05PM -0700, Lonni J Friedman wrote: > >> Greetings, > >> I'm in the process of planning for a production upgrade from 9.1.6 to > >> 9.2.x (all Linux-x86-64). In my staging environment (which has the > >> same versions), I kicked off pg_upgrade about 5 hours ago, and its > >> still not done. It is making progress, so I don't think anything has > >> gone wrong, beyond it taking much longer than anticipated. > >> > >> When I used pg_upgrade to go from 9.0.x to 9.1.x, it finished in just > >> under an hour. There is admittedly about three times as much data (in > >> terms of disk usage) now than when I upgraded from 9.0.x. Would that > >> explain the increased time needed to do the upgrade? Or is there > >> something about the upgrade to 9.2.x that requires a lot more time? > >> > >> I'm trying to understand if what I'm seeing is expected, normal > >> behavior, or if something might not be right. > > > > Odd. How many object/tables do you have? I have just patched 9.2 to > > improve upgrades for clusters with many objects. > > about 5000 tables spread across 5 databases. That should not take very long. Are you using link mode? -- Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. +