Re: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
Cc: Jacob Champion <jchampion@timescale.com>, Jan Wieck <jan@wi3ck.info>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Zhihong Yu <zyu@yugabyte.com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, 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: 2022-10-12T05:50:11Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 04:34:07PM -0700, Nathan Bossart wrote: > On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 04:29:10PM -0700, Jacob Champion wrote: >> To clarify, I agree that pg_dump should contain the core fix. What I'm >> questioning is the addition of --dump-options to make use of that fix >> from pg_upgrade, since it also lets the user do "exciting" new things >> like --exclude-schema and --include-foreign-data and so on. I don't >> think we should let them do that without a good reason. > > Ah, yes, I think that is a fair point. It has been more than four weeks since the last activity of this thread and there has been what looks like some feedback to me, so marked as RwF for the time being. -- Michael
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Count individual SQL commands in pg_restore's --transaction-size mode.
- 81db073a2878 17.0 landed
- 0f1290521504 18.0 landed
-
Reduce number of commands dumpTableSchema emits for binary upgrade.
- b3f0e0503f33 18.0 landed
- 2fa989e6a340 17.0 landed
-
Invent --transaction-size option for pg_restore.
- 959b38d770ba 17.0 landed
-
Rearrange pg_dump's handling of large objects for better efficiency.
- a45c78e3284b 17.0 landed
-
Add temporal PRIMARY KEY and UNIQUE constraints
- 46a0cd4cefb4 17.0 cited
-
Fix typo and case in messages
- 7d7ef075d2b3 17.0 cited