Message-ID: <dc88d14d-6d0f-2d67-ecfc-c7495bf1c22b@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2023 15:46:19 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Upgrade from PG12 to PG
Content-Language: nl, en-US, fr
References: <3901e0da-819b-5b6d-bb57-c29f6d384725@gmail.com>
 <CAG95seWz3dJxKQPg4_3EAEBCXUuJTDpZBUKAp0+bqP2amQaZ9g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jef Mortelle <jefmortelle@gmail.com>
To: pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org
Disposition-Notification-To: Jef Mortelle <jefmortelle@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAG95seWz3dJxKQPg4_3EAEBCXUuJTDpZBUKAp0+bqP2amQaZ9g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/dc88d14d-6d0f-2d67-ecfc-c7495bf1c22b%40gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

Many thanks for your answer.

So: not possible to have very little downtime if you have a database 
with al lot rows containing text  as datatype, as pg_upgrade needs 12hr 
for 24 milj rows in pg_largeobject.

Testing now with pg_dumpall en pg_restore ....


I think, postgresql should take this in high priority to  resolve this 
problem.

I have to make a choice in the near future: Postgres or Oracle, and that 
database would have a lot of datatype text.
Database would have 1 TB.
It seems me a little bit tricky/dangerous to use Postgres, just for 
being able to upgrade to a newer version.

Kind regards.

On 20/07/2023 13:43, Ilya Kosmodemiansky wrote:
> Hi Jef,
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 1:23 PM Jef Mortelle <jefmortelle@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Looking at the dump file: man many lines like SELECT
>> pg_catalog.lo_unlink('100000');
>>
>>
>> I have the same issue with /usr/lib/postgresql15/bin/pg_upgrade -v -p
>> 5431 -P 5432 -k
>>
>>
>> Whats going on ?
> pg_upgrade is known to be problematic with large objects.
> Please take a look here to start with:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20210309200819.GO2021%40telsasoft.com
>
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>>
>>