Re: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects
Date
Msg-id 3304322.1711551245@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects  (Michael Banck <mbanck@gmx.net>)
Responses Re: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects
List pgsql-hackers
Michael Banck <mbanck@gmx.net> writes:
> What is the status of this? In the commitfest, this patch is marked as
> "Needs Review" with Nathan as reviewer - Nathan, were you going to take
> another look at this or was your mail from January 12th a full review?

In my mind the ball is in Nathan's court.  I feel it's about
committable, but he might not agree.

> Also, is there a chance this is going to be back-patched?

No chance of that I'm afraid.  The patch bumps the archive version
number, because it creates TOC entries that older pg_restore would
not know what to do with.  We can't put that kind of compatibility
break into stable branches.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jelte Fennema-Nio
Date:
Subject: Re: Possibility to disable `ALTER SYSTEM`
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Remove some redundant set_cheapest() calls