pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michael Banck <mbanck@gmx.net>
To: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
Cc: vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>
Cc: Kumar, Sachin <ssetiya@amazon.com>
Cc: Robins Tharakan <tharakan@gmail.com>
Cc: Jan Wieck <jan@wi3ck.info>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 11:54:54 +0100
Message-ID: <6603fafe.050a0220.48abe.5d5b@mx.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a71f1582102a9fafcdf98094b8a221c5438e0b42.camel@cybertec.at>
References: <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>
	<a71f1582102a9fafcdf98094b8a221c5438e0b42.camel@cybertec.at>

Hi,

On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 10:53:51AM +0100, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-03-27 at 10:20 +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > Also, is there a chance this is going to be back-patched? I guess it
> > would be enough if the ugprade target is v17 so it is less of a concern,
> > but it would be nice if people with millions of large objects are not
> > stuck until they are ready to ugprade to v17.
> 
> It is a quite invasive patch, and it adds new features (pg_restore in
> bigger transaction patches), so I think this is not for backpatching,
> desirable as it may seem from the usability angle.

Right, I forgot about those changes, makes sense.


Michael





view thread (93+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <6603fafe.050a0220.48abe.5d5b@mx.google.com>
Permalink:  ../6603fafe.050a0220.48abe.5d5b@mx.google.com/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/6603fafe.050a0220.48abe.5d5b@mx.google.com

 · 

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: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Cc: mbanck@gmx.net, laurenz.albe@cybertec.at, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, nathandbossart@gmail.com, vignesh21@gmail.com, ssetiya@amazon.com, tharakan@gmail.com, jan@wi3ck.info, bruce@momjian.us, andrew@dunslane.net, magnus@hagander.net, peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com
  Subject: Re: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects
  In-Reply-To: <6603fafe.050a0220.48abe.5d5b@mx.google.com>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox