Re: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects

Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> writes:
> Sorry for taking so long to get back to this one.  Overall, I think the
> code is in decent shape.

Thanks for looking at it!

> The one design point that worries me a little is the non-configurability of
> --transaction-size in pg_upgrade.  I think it's fine to default it to 1,000
> or something, but given how often I've had to fiddle with
> max_locks_per_transaction, I'm wondering if we might regret hard-coding it.

Well, we could add a command-line switch to pg_upgrade, but I'm
unconvinced that it'd be worth the trouble.  I think a very large
fraction of users invoke pg_upgrade by means of packager-supplied
scripts that are unlikely to provide a way to pass through such
a switch.  I'm inclined to say let's leave it as-is until we get
some actual field requests for a switch.

            regards, tom lane