public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
To: Magnus Hagander <[email protected]>
Cc: Robins Tharakan <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2021 11:58:39 -0500
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABUevEzvU07CqwGdaOmxNfDtrkY-xEcLjiN3GAmurowyCnbG7w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <[email protected]>
<CABUevEwyLb9VE0D+bAQtUnaA7bffXYzBpopYuh7kGTQxY9T5_g@mail.gmail.com>
<CAEP4nAw2WA1wyb9LG7BOEuN3Xr-xWiZZ0w_hKtpyvdUPKmcAJA@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CABUevEzvU07CqwGdaOmxNfDtrkY-xEcLjiN3GAmurowyCnbG7w@mail.gmail.com>
Magnus Hagander <[email protected]> writes:
> On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 5:33 PM Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
>> It does seem that --single-transaction is a better idea than fiddling with
>> the transaction wraparound parameters, since the latter is just going to
>> put off the onset of trouble. However, we'd have to do something about
>> the lock consumption. Would it be sane to have the backend not bother to
>> take any locks in binary-upgrade mode?
> I believe the problem occurs when writing them rather than when
> reading them, and I don't think we have a binary upgrade mode there.
You're confusing pg_dump's --binary-upgrade switch (indeed applied on
the dumping side) with the backend's -b switch (IsBinaryUpgrade,
applied on the restoring side).
> We could invent one of course. Another option might be to exclusively
> lock pg_largeobject, and just say that if you do that, we don't have
> to lock the individual objects (ever)?
What was in the back of my mind is that we've sometimes seen complaints
about too many locks needed to dump or restore a database with $MANY
tables; so the large-object case seems like just a special case.
The answer up to now has been "raise max_locks_per_transaction enough
so you don't see the failure". Having now consumed a little more
caffeine, I remember that that works in pg_upgrade scenarios too,
since the user can fiddle with the target cluster's postgresql.conf
before starting pg_upgrade.
So it seems like the path of least resistance is
(a) make pg_upgrade use --single-transaction when calling pg_restore
(b) document (better) how to get around too-many-locks failures.
regards, tom lane
view thread (59+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox