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

From Michael Banck
Subject Re: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects
Date
Msg-id 6603fafe.050a0220.48abe.5d5b@mx.google.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects  (Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 10:53:51AM +0100, Laurenz Albe wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-03-27 at 10:20 +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> > Also, is there a chance this is going to be back-patched? I guess it
> > would be enough if the ugprade target is v17 so it is less of a concern,
> > but it would be nice if people with millions of large objects are not
> > stuck until they are ready to ugprade to v17.
> 
> It is a quite invasive patch, and it adds new features (pg_restore in
> bigger transaction patches), so I think this is not for backpatching,
> desirable as it may seem from the usability angle.

Right, I forgot about those changes, makes sense.


Michael



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: Properly pathify the union planner
Next
From: Jakub Wartak
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_combinebackup --copy-file-range