Re: [WIP] In-place upgrade

On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Tom Lane wrote:

> Another thought here is that I don't think we are yet committed to any
> changes that require extra space between 8.3 and 8.4, are we?  The
> proposed addition of CRC words could be put off to 8.5, for instance.

I was just staring at that code as you wrote this thinking about the same 
thing.  CRCs are a great feature I'd really like to see.  On the other 
hand, announcing that 8.4 features in-place upgrades for 8.3 databases, 
and that the project has laid the infrastructure such that future releases 
will also upgrade in-place, would IMHO be the biggest positive 
announcement of the new release by a large margin.  At least then new 
large (>1TB) installs could kick off on either the stable 8.3 or 8.4 
knowing they'd never be forced to deal with dump/reload, whereas right now 
there is no reasonable solution for them that involves PostgreSQL (I just 
crossed 3TB on a system last month and I'm not looking forward to its 
future upgrades).

Two questions come to mind here:

-If you reduce the page layout upgrade problem to "convert from V4 to V5 
adding support for CRCs", is there a worthwhile simpler path to handling 
that without dragging the full complexity of the older page layout changes 
in?

-Is it worth considering making CRCs an optional compile-time feature, and 
that (for now at least) you couldn't get them and the in-place upgrade at 
the same time?

Stepping back for a second, the idea that in-place upgrade is only 
worthwhile if it yields zero downtime isn't necessarily the case.  Even 
having an offline-only upgrade tool to handle the more complicated 
situations where tuples have to be squeezed onto another page would still 
be a major improvement over the current situation.  The thing that you 
have to recognize here is that dump/reload is extremely slow because of 
bottlenecks in the COPY process.  That makes for a large amount of 
downtime--many hours isn't unusual.

If older version upgrade downtime was reduced to how long it takes to run 
a "must scan every page and fiddle with it if full" tool, that would still 
be a giant improvement over the current state of things.  If Zdenek's 
figures that only a small percentages of pages will need such adjustment 
holds up, that should take only some factor longer than a sequential scan 
of the whole database.  That's not instant, but it's at least an order of 
magnitude faster than a dump/reload on a big system.

The idea that you're going to get in-place upgrade all the way back to 8.2 
without taking the database down for a even little bit to run such a 
utility is hard to pull off, and it's impressive that Zdenek and everyone 
else involved has gotten so close to doing it.  I personally am on the 
fence as to whether it's worth paying even the 1% penalty for that 
implementation all the time just to get in-place upgrades.  If an offline 
utility with reasonable (scan instead of dump/reload) downtime and closer 
to zero overhead when finished was available instead, that might be a more 
reasonable trade-off to make for handling older releases.  There are so 
many bottlenecks in the older versions that you're less likely to find a 
database too large to dump and reload there anyway.  It would also be the 
case that improvements to that offline utility could continue after 8.4 
proper was completely frozen.

--
* Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD