Re: Horribly slow pg_upgrade performance with many Large Objects
От | Hannu Krosing |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Horribly slow pg_upgrade performance with many Large Objects |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAMT0RQRJQW_9UVXqRFj7xCAQU9eY2ncWanbT3MckKJ=sTFerWQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Horribly slow pg_upgrade performance with many Large Objects (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 6:37 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Hannu Krosing <hannuk@google.com> writes: > > I think we do preserve role oids > > Oh ... I'd been looking for mentions of "role" in > pg_upgrade_support.c, but what I should have looked for was > "pg_authid". So yeah, we do preserve role OIDs, and maybe that's > enough to make this workable, at least with source versions that > share the same rules for what goes into pg_largeobject_metadata and > pg_shdepend. It's not something I'd risk back-patching though. The risk is why I suggest to have this in backports as something last resort which is gated on an environment variable I have been forced to do this half-manually a few times to make pg_upgrade feasible at all. Current really UGH workaround is to use pg_repack support for swapping relfilenodes of pg_largeobject_metadata with a user table before and after the upgrade and then manually patching up leftovers like pg_shdepend after pg_upgrade. These have fortunately been cases where there were no other dependencies like comments or security labels on LOs, but these to should be doable; > regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: