On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 10:08:26AM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote: > On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 10:54:05AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Michael Banck <mba...@gmx.net> writes: >>> What is the status of this? In the commitfest, this patch is marked as >>> "Needs Review" with Nathan as reviewer - Nathan, were you going to take >>> another look at this or was your mail from January 12th a full review? >> >> In my mind the ball is in Nathan's court. I feel it's about >> committable, but he might not agree. > > I'll prioritize another round of review on this one. FWIW I don't remember > having any major concerns on a previous version of the patch set I looked > at.
Sorry for taking so long to get back to this one. Overall, I think the code is in decent shape. Nothing stands out after a couple of passes. The small amount of runtime improvement cited upthread is indeed a bit disappointing, but IIUC this at least sets the stage for additional parallelism in the future, and the memory/disk usage improvements are nothing to sneeze at, either. The one design point that worries me a little is the non-configurability of --transaction-size in pg_upgrade. I think it's fine to default it to 1,000 or something, but given how often I've had to fiddle with max_locks_per_transaction, I'm wondering if we might regret hard-coding it. -- Nathan Bossart Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
