Committed.
--
nathan
On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 08:37:17AM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> My understanding is that you basically have to restart the upgrade from
> scratch if that happens. I suppose there could be a problem if you try to
> use the half-upgraded cluster after a crash, but I imagine you have a good
> chanc
On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 at 15:17, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 5:29 PM Nathan Bossart
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 09:41:01AM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > > Actually, I think you are right that we need a manual checkpoint, except I
> > > think we need it to be after pre
On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 09:17:00AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> OK, I have a (probably) stupid question. The comment says:
>
> + * In binary upgrade mode, we can skip this checkpoint because neither of
> + * these problems applies: we don't ever replay the WAL generated during
> + * pg_upgrade, and
On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 5:29 PM Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 09:41:01AM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > Actually, I think you are right that we need a manual checkpoint, except I
> > think we need it to be after prepare_new_globals(). set_frozenxids()
> > connects to each data
On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 at 23:29, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 09:41:01AM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> > Actually, I think you are right that we need a manual checkpoint, except I
> > think we need it to be after prepare_new_globals(). set_frozenxids()
> > connects to each data
4 -0500
Subject: [PATCH v3 1/1] Use CREATE DATABASE ... STRATEGY = FILE_COPY in
pg_upgrade.
While the strategy is considered very costly due to expensive checkpoints
when the target system has configured large shared_buffers, the issues that
those checkpoints protect against don't apply
On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 10:39:51AM +0200, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 at 04:01, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> It looks like pg_dump always uses template0, so AFAICT we don't even need
>> the suggested manual checkpoint after restoring template1.
>
> Thanks for reminding me. It s
On Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 10:39:51AM +0200, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 at 04:01, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> I did a handful of benchmarks on an r5.24xlarge that seem to prove your
>> point. The following are the durations of the pg_restore step of
>> pg_upgrade:
>>
>> * 10k em
On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 at 04:01, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 11:10:25AM +0200, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> > My primary concern isn't the IO, but the O(shared_buffers) that we
> > have to go through during a checkpoint. As I mentioned upthread, it is
> > reasonably possible t
On Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 11:10:25AM +0200, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> My primary concern isn't the IO, but the O(shared_buffers) that we
> have to go through during a checkpoint. As I mentioned upthread, it is
> reasonably possible the new cluster is already setup with a good
> fraction of the o
On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 2:40 PM Matthias van de Meent
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 at 10:28, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 11:57 AM Matthias van de Meent
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 at 07:18, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 10:59 PM Matthias
On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 at 10:28, Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 11:57 AM Matthias van de Meent
> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 at 07:18, Dilip Kumar wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 10:59 PM Matthias van de Meent
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree with you that we introduced the WAL_L
On Fri, Jun 7, 2024 at 11:57 AM Matthias van de Meent
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 at 07:18, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 10:59 PM Matthias van de Meent
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 at 18:47, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Why not use it too, if not binary_upg
On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 at 07:18, Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 10:59 PM Matthias van de Meent
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 at 18:47, Ranier Vilela wrote:
>>>
>>> Why not use it too, if not binary_upgrade?
>>
>> Because in the normal case (not during binary_upgrade) you don't wan
On Wed, Jun 5, 2024 at 10:59 PM Matthias van de Meent
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 at 18:47, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> >
> > Em ter., 4 de jun. de 2024 às 16:39, Nathan Bossart
> > escreveu:
> >>
> >> I noticed that the "Restoring database schemas in the new cluster" part of
> >> pg_upgrade can t
On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 07:28:42PM +0200, Matthias van de Meent wrote:
> As for "on my laptop", that sounds very reasonable, but could you
> check the performance on systems with larger shared buffer
> configurations? I'd imagine (but haven't checked) that binary upgrade
> target systems may alread
On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 at 18:47, Ranier Vilela wrote:
>
> Em ter., 4 de jun. de 2024 às 16:39, Nathan Bossart
> escreveu:
>>
>> I noticed that the "Restoring database schemas in the new cluster" part of
>> pg_upgrade can take a while if you have many databases, so I experimented
>> with a couple dif
On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 01:47:09PM -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> Why not use it too, if not binary_upgrade?
>
> else
> {
> appendPQExpBuffer(creaQry, "CREATE DATABASE %s WITH TEMPLATE = template0
> STRATEGY = FILE_COPY",
> qdatname);
> }
>
> It seems to me that it also improves in any use.
Well
Em ter., 4 de jun. de 2024 às 16:39, Nathan Bossart <
nathandboss...@gmail.com> escreveu:
> I noticed that the "Restoring database schemas in the new cluster" part of
> pg_upgrade can take a while if you have many databases, so I experimented
> with a couple different settings to see if there are
I noticed that the "Restoring database schemas in the new cluster" part of
pg_upgrade can take a while if you have many databases, so I experimented
with a couple different settings to see if there are any easy ways to speed
it up. The FILE_COPY strategy for CREATE DATABASE helped quite
significan
21 matches
Mail list logo
