Horton
Menu

Re: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Jan Wieck <jan@wi3ck.info>, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>, Robins Tharakan <tharakan@gmail.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>, "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2021-03-20T16:53:40Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 20, 2021 at 11:23:19AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Of course, that just reduces the memory consumption on the client
>> side; it does nothing for the locks.  Can we get away with releasing the
>> lock immediately after doing an ALTER OWNER or GRANT/REVOKE on a blob?

> Well, in pg_upgrade mode you can, since there are no other cluster
> users, but you might be asking for general pg_dump usage.

Yeah, this problem doesn't only affect pg_upgrade scenarios, so it'd
really be better to find a way that isn't dependent on binary-upgrade
mode.

			regards, tom lane

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Count individual SQL commands in pg_restore's --transaction-size mode.

  2. Reduce number of commands dumpTableSchema emits for binary upgrade.

  3. Invent --transaction-size option for pg_restore.

  4. Rearrange pg_dump's handling of large objects for better efficiency.

  5. Add temporal PRIMARY KEY and UNIQUE constraints

  6. Fix typo and case in messages