Thread: pg_upgrade from 9.1 to 9.2 takes a really long time (compared to previous versions)?

pg_upgrade from 9.1 to 9.2 takes a really long time (compared to previous versions)?

From
Lonni J Friedman
Date:
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.

thanks


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.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +


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.


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?

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +


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


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.

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +


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.


On Wed, Nov  7, 2012 at 01:09:19PM -0800, Lonni J Friedman wrote:
> 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.

It should spin through the file names as they are copied.  What was the
last output line before it hung?

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

  + It's impossible for everything to be true. +


On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov  7, 2012 at 01:09:19PM -0800, Lonni J Friedman wrote:
>> 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.
>
> It should spin through the file names as they are copied.  What was the
> last output line before it hung?

It never hung, it just took a very long time.  This was over 2 weeks
ago, and I'm afraid that I don't have the output any longer.  Once I
was satisfied that the upgrade was successful, and 9.2 was working ok,
I deleted the log and 9.1 bits.