public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Nathan Bossart <[email protected]>
To: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
Cc: Michael Banck <[email protected]>
Cc: Laurenz Albe <[email protected]>
Cc: vignesh C <[email protected]>
Cc: Kumar, Sachin <[email protected]>
Cc: Robins Tharakan <[email protected]>
Cc: Jan Wieck <[email protected]>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <[email protected]>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
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: <[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<CALDaNm08DLqkr6LQfB=AJ-wEOGtASW+rYGsD6Q56-bYBYoHFdA@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<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 <[email protected]> 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

view thread (18+ messages)

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], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  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 agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox