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 <br...@momjian.us> 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? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
