Re: pg_upgrade failing for 200+ million Large Objects

On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 12:24 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> So I'm forced to the conclusion that we'd better make the transaction
> size adaptive as per Alexander's suggestion.
>
> In addition to the patches attached, I experimented with making
> dumpTableSchema fold all the ALTER TABLE commands for a single table
> into one command.  That's do-able without too much effort, but I'm now
> convinced that we shouldn't.  It would break the semicolon-counting
> hack for detecting that tables like these involve extra work.
> I'm also not very confident that the backend won't have trouble with
> ALTER TABLE commands containing hundreds of subcommands.  That's
> something we ought to work on probably, but it's not a project that
> I want to condition v17 pg_upgrade's stability on.
>
> Anyway, proposed patches attached.  0001 is some trivial cleanup
> that I noticed while working on the failed single-ALTER-TABLE idea.
> 0002 merges the catalog-UPDATE commands that dumpTableSchema issues,
> and 0003 is Alexander's suggestion.

Nice to see you picked up my idea.  I took a look over the patchset.
Looks good to me.

------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov
Supabase