From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Michael Banck <mbanck@gmx.net>
Cc: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
Cc: vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>
Cc: Kumar, Sachin <ssetiya@amazon.com>
Cc: Robins Tharakan <tharakan@gmail.com>
Cc: Jan Wieck <jan@wi3ck.info>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2024 14:19:30 -0500
Message-ID: <20240401191930.GA2302032@nathanxps13> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240327150826.GB3994937@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>
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 10:08:26AM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 10:54:05AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Michael Banck <mbanck@gmx.net> writes:
>>> What is the status of this? In the commitfest, this patch is marked as
>>> "Needs Review" with Nathan as reviewer - Nathan, were you going to take
>>> another look at this or was your mail from January 12th a full review?
>>
>> In my mind the ball is in Nathan's court. I feel it's about
>> committable, but he might not agree.
>
> I'll prioritize another round of review on this one. FWIW I don't remember
> having any major concerns on a previous version of the patch set I looked
> at.
Sorry for taking so long to get back to this one. Overall, I think the
code is in decent shape. Nothing stands out after a couple of passes. The
small amount of runtime improvement cited upthread is indeed a bit
disappointing, but IIUC this at least sets the stage for additional
parallelism in the future, and the memory/disk usage improvements are
nothing to sneeze at, either.
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.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
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: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: nathandbossart@gmail.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, mbanck@gmx.net, laurenz.albe@cybertec.at, vignesh21@gmail.com, ssetiya@amazon.com, tharakan@gmail.com, jan@wi3ck.info, bruce@momjian.us, andrew@dunslane.net, magnus@hagander.net, peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects
In-Reply-To: <20240401191930.GA2302032@nathanxps13>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox