From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
cc: Michael Banck <mbanck@gmx.net>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>,
        vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>,
        "Kumar,
    Sachin" <ssetiya@amazon.com>,
        Robins Tharakan <tharakan@gmail.com>, Jan Wieck <jan@wi3ck.info>,
        Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>,
        Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>,
        Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>,
        "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects
In-reply-to: <20240401191930.GA2302032@nathanxps13>
References: <2055911.1702258962@sss.pgh.pa.us> <557FD681-3929-44A1-87B2-6B5E10C4A66B@amazon.com> <CALDaNm08DLqkr6LQfB=AJ-wEOGtASW+rYGsD6Q56-bYBYoHFdA@mail.gmail.com> <842242.1706287466@sss.pgh.pa.us> <!2751089.1710544721@sss.pgh.pa.us> <4a3ebf7d81bfc6dd4d545e5b27d6e8f6c32d8937.camel@cybertec.at> <3023817.1710629175@sss.pgh.pa.us> <6603e4e0.500a0220.a557f.4f39@mx.google.com> <3304322.1711551245@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20240327150826.GB3994937@nathanxps13> <20240401191930.GA2302032@nathanxps13>
Comments: In-reply-to Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
	message dated "Mon, 01 Apr 2024 14:19:30 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1217587.1711999706.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2024 15:28:26 -0400
Message-ID: <1217588.1711999706@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1217588.1711999706%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> writes:
> Sorry for taking so long to get back to this one.  Overall, I think the
> code is in decent shape.

Thanks for looking at it!

> The one design point that worries me a little is the non-configurability of
> --transaction-size in pg_upgrade.  I think it's fine to default it to 1,000
> or something, but given how often I've had to fiddle with
> max_locks_per_transaction, I'm wondering if we might regret hard-coding it.

Well, we could add a command-line switch to pg_upgrade, but I'm
unconvinced that it'd be worth the trouble.  I think a very large
fraction of users invoke pg_upgrade by means of packager-supplied
scripts that are unlikely to provide a way to pass through such
a switch.  I'm inclined to say let's leave it as-is until we get
some actual field requests for a switch.

			regards, tom lane