On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 01:06:19PM -0800, Lonni J Friedman wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 10:44:12AM -0800, Lonni J Friedman wrote:
> >> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 02:44:05PM -0700, Lonni J Friedman wrote:
> >> >> Greetings,
> >> >> I'm in the process of planning for a production upgrade from 9.1.6 to
> >> >> 9.2.x (all Linux-x86-64). In my staging environment (which has the
> >> >> same versions), I kicked off pg_upgrade about 5 hours ago, and its
> >> >> still not done. It is making progress, so I don't think anything has
> >> >> gone wrong, beyond it taking much longer than anticipated.
> >> >>
> >> >> When I used pg_upgrade to go from 9.0.x to 9.1.x, it finished in just
> >> >> under an hour. There is admittedly about three times as much data (in
> >> >> terms of disk usage) now than when I upgraded from 9.0.x. Would that
> >> >> explain the increased time needed to do the upgrade? Or is there
> >> >> something about the upgrade to 9.2.x that requires a lot more time?
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm trying to understand if what I'm seeing is expected, normal
> >> >> behavior, or if something might not be right.
> >> >
> >> > Odd. How many object/tables do you have? I have just patched 9.2 to
> >> > improve upgrades for clusters with many objects.
> >>
> >> about 5000 tables spread across 5 databases.
> >
> > That should not take very long. Are you using link mode?
>
> Nope. The command that I used was:
> pg_upgrade -b /usr/pgsql-9.1/bin -B /usr/pgsql-9.2/bin -d
> /var/lib/pgsql/9.1/data -D /var/lib/pgsql/9.2/data
Well, it must then copy all the data from old to new cluster --- that
could take a while.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
