From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
cc: Jan Wieck <jan@wi3ck.info>, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>,
        Robins Tharakan <tharakan@gmail.com>,
        Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>,
        "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects
In-reply-to: <20210320164536.GB7968@momjian.us>
References: <a9f9376f1c3343a6bb319dce294e20ac@EX13D05UWC001.ant.amazon.com>
 <CABUevEwyLb9VE0D+bAQtUnaA7bffXYzBpopYuh7kGTQxY9T5_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEP4nAw2WA1wyb9LG7BOEuN3Xr-xWiZZ0w_hKtpyvdUPKmcAJA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1742698.1615221182@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CABUevEzvU07CqwGdaOmxNfDtrkY-xEcLjiN3GAmurowyCnbG7w@mail.gmail.com>
 <1743618.1615222719@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <4fbf92f2-ec91-f4fa-a259-f0968e34f3d7@wi3ck.info>
 <181907.1616253799@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20210320164536.GB7968@momjian.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
	message dated "Sat, 20 Mar 2021 12:45:36 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <227227.1616259220.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2021 12:53:40 -0400
Message-ID: <227228.1616259220@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/227228.1616259220%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 11:23:19AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Of course, that just reduces the memory consumption on the client
>> side; it does nothing for the locks.  Can we get away with releasing the
>> lock immediately after doing an ALTER OWNER or GRANT/REVOKE on a blob?

> Well, in pg_upgrade mode you can, since there are no other cluster
> users, but you might be asking for general pg_dump usage.

Yeah, this problem doesn't only affect pg_upgrade scenarios, so it'd
really be better to find a way that isn't dependent on binary-upgrade
mode.

			regards, tom lane