From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: pf@pfortin.com
cc: pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade: can I use same binary for old & new?
In-reply-to: <20250705142416.06e99667@pfortin.com>
References: <20250705125207.31b4d475@pfortin.com> <b558441b-0bd8-4cfb-aa4c-64fdcb530531@aklaver.com> <20250705142416.06e99667@pfortin.com>
Comments: In-reply-to pf@pfortin.com
	message dated "Sat, 05 Jul 2025 14:24:16 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <65040.1751740220.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2025 14:30:20 -0400
Message-ID: <65041.1751740220@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/65041.1751740220%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

pf@pfortin.com writes:
> On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 11:11:32 -0700 Adrian Klaver wrote:
>> How did you measure above?

> # du -sb /var/lib/pgsql/data
> 8227910662297   /var/lib/pgsql/data

It's likely that there's a deal of bloat in that.  Even if there's not
much bloat, this number will include indexes and WAL data that don't
appear in pg_dump output.

>> What was the pg_dump command?

> Didn't try given:
> $ df /mnt/db
> Filesystem      Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
> /dev/sdh1        17T   13T  3.0T  82% /mnt/db

I'd say give it a try; be sure to use one of the pg_dump modes
that compress the data.

			regards, tom lane