PostgreSQL: the good, the bad, and the ugly

Posted May 22, 2015 14:58 UTC (Fri) by andresfreund (subscriber, #69562)
In reply to: PostgreSQL: the good, the bad, and the ugly by niner
Parent article: PostgreSQL: the good, the bad, and the ugly

It shouldn't take hours. There've been a couple known efficiencies (dpeendenciy walking, parallelism inside pg_upgrade) fixed. It'd be interesting to do the exercise again and tell us what's slow and help us fixing it.

PostgreSQL: the good, the bad, and the ugly

Posted May 22, 2015 15:35 UTC (Fri) by niner (subscriber, #26151) [Link] (1 responses)

Before I posted my comment, I started pg_upgrade 9.4.1 with a copy of our production database (currently running 9.2) on a test machine. It's been running since and spending its time in "Creating dump of database schemas". That's about 5 hours now.

I would certainly like to help improve pg_upgrade to a point where it becomes useful for us :)

The fixed known efficiencies, are they fixed in 9.4 or 9.5?
Where's the appropriate place to continue this discussion?

PostgreSQL: the good, the bad, and the ugly

Posted May 22, 2015 15:52 UTC (Fri) by andresfreund (subscriber, #69562) [Link]

That's obviously not how it should be. I'd suggest a bugreport or a mail to the hackers mailing list. The dependency computation inefficiency "unfortunately" is already fixed in 9.4.1.