On 7/28/2016 3:16 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 12:35:23AM -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:
>On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 9:48 PM, John R Pierce<pie...@hogranch.com> wrote:
> >On 7/27/2016 9:39 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> >>
> >>That depends on how how many objects there are consuming that 1 TB.
> >>With millions of small objects, you will have problems. Not as many
> >>in 9.5 as there were in 9.1, but still it does not scale linearly in
> >>the number of objects. If you only have thousands of objects, then as
> >>far as I know -k works like a charm.
> >
> >
> >millions of tables?
>
>Well, it was a problem at much smaller values, until we fixed many of
>them. But the perversity is, if you are stuck on a version before the
>fixes, the problems prevent you from getting to a version on which it
>is not a problem any more.
Uh, that is only true if the slowness was in_dumping_ many objects.
Most of the fixes have been for_restoring_ many objects, and that is
done in the new cluster, so they should be OK.
I thought we were talking about pg_upgrade in -k link mode? or does
that rely on a dump/restore --schema-only operation to create the metadata?
--
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz
