On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> 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.
I guess so, but its hard to tell. It was sitting for quite a while
with no output.
