Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2024 14:37:18 -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: <20240401193718.GB2302032@nathanxps13>
References: <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>
 <1217588.1711999706@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1217588.1711999706@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20240401193718.GB2302032%40nathanxps13>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 03:28:26PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> writes:
>> 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.

Okay.  I'll let you know if I see anything.  IIRC usually the pg_dump side
of pg_upgrade is more prone to lock exhaustion, so you may very well be
right that this is unnecessary.

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com