Feedback-ID: i76984098:Fastmail
Message-ID: <230414d2-9a59-4395-bd81-74972c192e25@aklaver.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 07:47:57 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Downgrade pgsql 17 to pgsql 12 question
To: Ashish Mukherjee <ashish.mukherjee@gmail.com>,
 Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
References: <CACgMzfxO7h+Bj4T8rjTV=trM3+Uw=jOAcUE+0Kimv4DSAVU1JA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHyXU0ynqbCHrw3XvofEzidHow4tx1FFGNB2FUR5-wj-EhLcNQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACgMzfwyMxq+qVFBMXzsMFFdBKJ5aRf_REX01KHL1mcVpRKwyA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACgMzfwyMxq+qVFBMXzsMFFdBKJ5aRf_REX01KHL1mcVpRKwyA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/230414d2-9a59-4395-bd81-74972c192e25%40aklaver.com>
Precedence: bulk

On 9/30/25 01:23, Ashish Mukherjee wrote:
> Thank you all for your inputs.
> 
> Well, Percona TDE was leading to the queries being very inefficient / 
> slow after upgrading to pgsql 17. Explain analyze shows that query 
> planning time shoots up crazily. A decision was taken to go back to 

How did you determine that Percona TDE was the issue vs a 5 version jump 
in Postgres?


> Now the consideration is to use some other encryption option for the 
> database which will work fine on pgsql 17. Cybertec's technology is one 
> route, the other is EDB. I am happy to hear experiences of folks here 
> with pgsql encryption options for v17 on large databases (2.5T in our case).

Personally I would verify first that you are not hitting some more 
general issue with the 5 years of changes in Postgres since the last 
release of 12 and current release of 17.

> 
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 5:10 AM Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com 
> <mailto:mmoncure@gmail.com>> wrote:


-- 
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com