On 3/8/21 11:58 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> The answer up to now has been "raise max_locks_per_transaction enough
> so you don't see the failure". Having now consumed a little more
> caffeine, I remember that that works in pg_upgrade scenarios too,
> since the user can fiddle with the target cluster's postgresql.conf
> before starting pg_upgrade.
>
> So it seems like the path of least resistance is
>
> (a) make pg_upgrade use --single-transaction when calling pg_restore
>
> (b) document (better) how to get around too-many-locks failures.
That would first require to fix how pg_upgrade is creating the
databases. It uses "pg_restore --create", which is mutually exclusive
with --single-transaction because we cannot create a database inside of
a transaction. On the way pg_upgrade also mangles the pg_database.datdba
(all databases are owned by postgres after an upgrade; will submit a
separate patch for that as I consider that a bug by itself).
All that aside, the entire approach doesn't scale.
In a hacked up pg_upgrade that does "createdb" first before calling
pg_upgrade with --single-transaction. I can upgrade 1M large objects with
max_locks_per_transaction = 5300
max_connectinons=100
which contradicts the docs. Need to find out where that math went off
the rails because that config should only have room for 530,000 locks,
not 1M. The same test fails with max_locks_per_transaction = 5200.
But this would mean that one has to modify the postgresql.conf to
something like 530,000 max_locks_per_transaction at 100 max_connections
in order to actually run a successful upgrade of 100M large objects.
This config requires 26GB of memory just for locks. Add to that the
memory pg_restore needs to load the entire TOC before even restoring a
single object.
Not going to work. But tests are still ongoing ...
Regards, Jan
--
Jan Wieck
Principle Database Engineer
Amazon Web Services