Re: pg15b2: large objects lost on upgrade
Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
From: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Shruthi Gowda <gowdashru@gmail.com>
Date: 2022-07-05T16:56:05Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Revert recent changes to 002_pg_upgrade.pl.
- 6f7e7d0c482d 15.0 landed
- 87e22f675fd8 16.0 landed
-
Revise test case added in 43746996399541ecb5c7b188725a5f097c15ceae.
- d92f2bc0dae3 15.0 landed
- 212bdc0cbc32 16.0 landed
-
Use TRUNCATE to preserve relfilenode for pg_largeobject + index.
- bbe08b8869bd 16.0 landed
- 4ab5dae9472c 15.0 landed
-
Preserve relfilenode of pg_largeobject and its index across pg_upgrade.
- a2996478c32d 15.0 landed
- d498e052b4b8 16.0 landed
-
Have VACUUM warn on relfrozenxid "in the future".
- e83ebfe6d767 15.0 cited
-
Set relfrozenxid to oldest extant XID seen by VACUUM.
- 0b018fabaaba 15.0 cited
-
pg_upgrade: Preserve relfilenodes and tablespace OIDs.
- 9a974cbcba00 15.0 cited
-
Perform a lot more sanity checks when freezing tuples.
- 699bf7d05c68 11.0 cited
On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 12:43:54PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sat, Jul 2, 2022 at 11:49 AM Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote: > > I suppose it's like Bruce said, here. > > > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20210601140949.GC22012%40momjian.us > > Well, I feel dumb. I remember reading that email back when Bruce sent > it, but it seems that it slipped out of my head between then and when > I committed. I think your patch is fine, except that I think maybe we My patch also leaves a 0 byte file around from initdb, which is harmless, but dirty. I've seen before where a bunch of 0 byte files are abandoned in an otherwise-empty tablespace, with no associated relation, and I have to "rm" them to be able to drop the tablespace. Maybe that's a known issue, maybe it's due to crashes or other edge case, maybe it's of no consequence, and maybe it's already been fixed or being fixed already. But it'd be nice to avoid another way to have a 0 byte files - especially ones named with system OIDs. > Listing the exact properties preserved seems less important to me than > mentioning that the second UPDATE statement is for its index -- +1 -- Justin