Re: pg_upgrade on high number tables database issues
От | Pavel Stehule |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pg_upgrade on high number tables database issues |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAFj8pRBGP+kO4T8a+6C=beHvxK_Vcy6zUdMWE0DjDq+YuvJPmA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pg_upgrade on high number tables database issues (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: pg_upgrade on high number tables database issues
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
2014-03-10 20:11 GMT+01:00 Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 07:40:42PM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:Remember pg_upgrade is using pg_dump, which then connecting to a
>
> >
> > There were several bottlenecks in this area removed in 9.2 and 9.3.
> > Unfortunately the worst of those bottlenecks were in the server, so they
> depend
> > on what database you are upgrading from, and so won't help you much
> upgrading
> > from 9.1.
>
> Yes, I assume 9.3 will be much better, though Jeff is right that if it
> is pg_dump locking that is hurting you, you might not see a win even in
> 9.3.
>
>
> I'll see it next year when we plan to migrate to 9.4
>
> I though so some form of "superlock" can be interesting, because nobody can
> work with database when it is upgraded.
backend, so passing that super-lock mode there is not ideal. The fixes
in 9.3 improve locking in all user cases, not just upgrades.
nice
Thank you
Pavel
Pavel
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: