Message-ID: <6603fafe.050a0220.48abe.5d5b@mx.google.com>
Sender: Michael Banck <mbanck@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 11:54:54 +0100
From: Michael Banck <mbanck@gmx.net>
To: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, 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
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <a71f1582102a9fafcdf98094b8a221c5438e0b42.camel@cybertec.at>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/6603fafe.050a0220.48abe.5d5b%40mx.google.com>
Precedence: bulk

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