Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2024 14:19:30 -0500
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
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
Message-ID: <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240327150826.GB3994937@nathanxps13>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20240401191930.GA2302032%40nathanxps13>
Precedence: bulk

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