From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Michael Banck <mbanck@gmx.net>
cc: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>,
        Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>,
        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
In-reply-to: <6603e4e0.500a0220.a557f.4f39@mx.google.com>
References: <83D44BE5-0088-4D41-8AE6-20A05D026F46@amazon.com> <81D13E16-BA04-43CF-9B89-B8924300B211@amazon.com> <240D05EC-8B28-4112-BEAB-85ECBAF3F871@amazon.com> <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>
Comments: In-reply-to Michael Banck <mbanck@gmx.net>
	message dated "Wed, 27 Mar 2024 10:20:31 +0100"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <3304321.1711551245.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 10:54:05 -0400
Message-ID: <3304322.1711551245@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3304322.1711551245%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

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.

> Also, is there a chance this is going to be back-patched?

No chance of that I'm afraid.  The patch bumps the archive version
number, because it creates TOC entries that older pg_restore would
not know what to do with.  We can't put that kind of compatibility
break into stable branches.

			regards, tom lane