Re: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects

Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> writes:
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 10:53:30PM +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>> It would be nice to identify such cases and check which memory contexts are
>> growing and why.

> I reproduced the problem with this schema:

> SELECT format('CREATE TABLE p(i int, %s) PARTITION BY RANGE(i)', array_to_string(a, ', ')) FROM (SELECT array_agg(format('i%s int', i))a FROM generate_series(1,999)i);
> SELECT format('CREATE TABLE t%s PARTITION OF p FOR VALUES FROM (%s)TO(%s)', i,i,i+1) FROM generate_series(1,999)i;

> This used over 4 GB of RAM.

Interesting.  This doesn't bloat particularly much in a regular
pg_restore, even with --transaction-size=1000; but it does in
pg_upgrade, as you say.  I found that the bloat was occurring
during these long sequences of UPDATE commands issued by pg_upgrade:

-- For binary upgrade, recreate inherited column.
UPDATE pg_catalog.pg_attribute
SET attislocal = false
WHERE attname = 'i'
  AND attrelid = '\"public\".\"t139\"'::pg_catalog.regclass;

-- For binary upgrade, recreate inherited column.
UPDATE pg_catalog.pg_attribute
SET attislocal = false
WHERE attname = 'i1'
  AND attrelid = '\"public\".\"t139\"'::pg_catalog.regclass;

-- For binary upgrade, recreate inherited column.
UPDATE pg_catalog.pg_attribute
SET attislocal = false
WHERE attname = 'i2'
  AND attrelid = '\"public\".\"t139\"'::pg_catalog.regclass;

I think the problem is basically that each one of these commands
causes a relcache inval, for which we can't reclaim space right
away, so that we end up consuming O(N^2) cache space for an
N-column inherited table.

It's fairly easy to fix things so that this example doesn't cause
that to happen: we just need to issue these updates as one command
not N commands per table.  See attached.  However, I fear this should
just be considered a draft, because the other code for binary upgrade
in the immediate vicinity is just as aggressively stupid and
unoptimized as this bit, and can probably also be driven to O(N^2)
behavior with enough CHECK constraints etc.  We've gone out of our way
to make ALTER TABLE capable of handling many updates to a table's DDL
in one command, but whoever wrote this code appears not to have read
that memo, or at least to have believed that performance of pg_upgrade
isn't of concern.

> Note that there seemed to be no issue when I created 999 tables without
> partitioning:
> SELECT format('CREATE TABLE t%s(LIKE p)', i,i,i+1) FROM generate_series(1,999)i;

Yeah, because then we don't need to play games with attislocal.

			regards, tom lane