On 3/21/21 3:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jan Wieck writes:
So let's focus on the actual problem of running out of XIDs and memory
while doing the upgrade involving millions of small large objects.
Right. So as far as --single-transaction vs. --create goes, that's
mostly a definitional problem. A
Jan Wieck writes:
> So let's focus on the actual problem of running out of XIDs and memory
> while doing the upgrade involving millions of small large objects.
Right. So as far as --single-transaction vs. --create goes, that's
mostly a definitional problem. As long as the contents of a DB are
On 3/21/21 2:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
and I see
--
-- Name: joe; Type: DATABASE; Schema: -; Owner: joe
--
CREATE DATABASE joe WITH TEMPLATE = template0 ENCODING = 'SQL_ASCII' LOCALE =
'C';
ALTER DATABASE joe OWNER TO joe;
so at least in this case it's doing the right thing. We need a bit
mor
I wrote:
> ... so at least in this case it's doing the right thing. We need a bit
> more detail about the context in which it's doing the wrong thing
> for you.
Just to cross-check, I tried modifying pg_upgrade's regression test
as attached, and it still passes. (And inspection of the leftover
d
I wrote:
> Needs a little more work than that --- we should allow it to respond
> to the --no-owner switch, for example. But I think likely we can do
> it where other object ownership is handled. I'll look in a bit.
Actually ... said code already DOES do that, so now I'm confused.
I tried
regre
Jan Wieck writes:
>> On 3/21/21 12:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I think maybe what we have here is a bug in pg_restore, its
>>> --create switch ought to be trying to update the database's
>>> ownership.
> Thanks for that. I like this patch a lot better.
Needs a little more work than that --- we sh
On 3/21/21 1:15 PM, Jan Wieck wrote:
On 3/21/21 12:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jan Wieck writes:
On 3/20/21 12:39 AM, Jan Wieck wrote:
On the way pg_upgrade also mangles the pg_database.datdba
(all databases are owned by postgres after an upgrade; will submit a
separate patch for that as I conside
On 3/21/21 12:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jan Wieck writes:
On 3/20/21 12:39 AM, Jan Wieck wrote:
On the way pg_upgrade also mangles the pg_database.datdba
(all databases are owned by postgres after an upgrade; will submit a
separate patch for that as I consider that a bug by itself).
Patch atta
Jan Wieck writes:
> On 3/20/21 12:39 AM, Jan Wieck wrote:
>> On the way pg_upgrade also mangles the pg_database.datdba
>> (all databases are owned by postgres after an upgrade; will submit a
>> separate patch for that as I consider that a bug by itself).
> Patch attached.
Hmm, doesn't this lose
