Re: Rearchitecting for storage
От | Rob Sargent |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Rearchitecting for storage |
Дата | |
Msg-id | A853620E-A179-49A5-B079-B7EF01F2802D@gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Rearchitecting for storage (Matthew Pounsett <matt@conundrum.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Rearchitecting for storage
|
Список | 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?
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: