Re: Rearchitecting for storage - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Rob Sargent
Subject Re: Rearchitecting for storage
Date
Msg-id A853620E-A179-49A5-B079-B7EF01F2802D@gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Rearchitecting for storage  (Matthew Pounsett <matt@conundrum.com>)
Responses Re: Rearchitecting for storage  (Matthew Pounsett <matt@conundrum.com>)
List pgsql-general
>
> That would likely keep the extra storage requirements small, but still non-zero.  Presumably the upgrade would be
unnecessaryif it could be done without rewriting files.  Is there any rule of thumb for making sure one has enough
spaceavailable for the upgrade?   I suppose that would come down to what exactly needs to get rewritten, in what order,
etc.,but the pg_upgrade docs don't seem to have that detail.  For example, since we've got an ~18TB table (including
itsindices), if that needs to be rewritten then we're still looking at requiring significant extra storage.  Recent
experiencesuggests postgres won't necessarily do things in the most storage-efficient way.. we just had a reindex on
thatdatabase fail (in --single-user) because 17TB was insufficient free storage for the db to grow into. 
>
Can you afford to drop and re-create those 6 indices?


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: "Elaina Gerhold"
Date:
Subject: Payroll Potential Business Lead
Next
From: Andy Colson
Date:
Subject: Re: Rearchitecting for storage