Re: Horribly slow pg_upgrade performance with many Large Objects - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Horribly slow pg_upgrade performance with many Large Objects
Date
Msg-id 700576.1752514083@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Horribly slow pg_upgrade performance with many Large Objects  (Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Horribly slow pg_upgrade performance with many Large Objects
List pgsql-hackers
Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> writes:
> Here is what I have staged for commit, which (barring feedback or
> objections) I am planning to do towards the end of the week.

Is it intentional that this does

+#include "catalog/pg_largeobject_metadata.h"
+#include "catalog/pg_shdepend.h"

rather than including the corresponding *_d.h headers?
If so, why?  Our normal coding convention is that frontend
code should only include catalog *_d.h files, since the main
headers might contain frontend-unfriendly declarations.
If there is something we need to expose in these catalogs'
*_d.h headers, we should probably do that.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Dmitry Dolgov
Date:
Subject: Re: Changing shared_buffers without restart
Next
From: Nathan Bossart
Date:
Subject: Re: Horribly slow pg_upgrade performance with many Large Objects