On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 10:44:12AM -0800, Lonni J Friedman wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 02:44:05PM -0700, Lonni J Friedman wrote: >> >> Greetings, >> >> I'm in the process of planning for a production upgrade from 9.1.6 to >> >> 9.2.x (all Linux-x86-64). In my staging environment (which has the >> >> same versions), I kicked off pg_upgrade about 5 hours ago, and its >> >> still not done. It is making progress, so I don't think anything has >> >> gone wrong, beyond it taking much longer than anticipated. >> >> >> >> When I used pg_upgrade to go from 9.0.x to 9.1.x, it finished in just >> >> under an hour. There is admittedly about three times as much data (in >> >> terms of disk usage) now than when I upgraded from 9.0.x. Would that >> >> explain the increased time needed to do the upgrade? Or is there >> >> something about the upgrade to 9.2.x that requires a lot more time? >> >> >> >> I'm trying to understand if what I'm seeing is expected, normal >> >> behavior, or if something might not be right. >> > >> > Odd. How many object/tables do you have? I have just patched 9.2 to >> > improve upgrades for clusters with many objects. >> >> about 5000 tables spread across 5 databases. > > That should not take very long. Are you using link mode? Nope. The command that I used was: pg_upgrade -b /usr/pgsql-9.1/bin -B /usr/pgsql-9.2/bin -d /var/lib/pgsql/9.1/data -D /var/lib/pgsql/9.2/data -- Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
