Re: Pg_upgrade speed for many tables
| От | Magnus Hagander |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Pg_upgrade speed for many tables |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CABUevEzyaL2iiJqqa4BQHYbiScN3+H7JA_mduQm+mbMSYAXOqA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Pg_upgrade speed for many tables (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Pg_upgrade speed for many tables
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:You sure there's not an O(N^2) issue in there somewhere?
> Magnus reported that a customer with a million tables was finding
> pg_upgrade slow.
No objection, but this seems unlikely to be better than linear speedup,
> I don't see anything unsafe about having pg_upgrade use
> synchronous_commit=off.
with a not-terribly-large constant factor.
BTW, does pg_upgrade run pg_restore in --single-transaction mode?
That would probably make synchronous_commit moot, at least for that
step.
It doesn't use pg_restore at all - it uses the dump from pg_dumpall, which you can't reload with pg_restore.
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: