On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 10:14:08AM +0200, Andreas Joseph Krogh wrote: > I would assume that having pg_largeobject in a separate tablespace is more and > more common these days, having real-cheap SAN vs. fast-SSD for normal tables/ > indexes/wal.
So common that no one has ever asked for this feature before? > So - I'm wondering if we can fund development of pg_upgrade to cope with this > configuration or somehow motivate to getting this issue fixed? > > Would any of the PG-companies (2ndQ, EDB, PgPro) take a stab at this? > > Any feedback welcome, thanks. You would need to get buy-in that that community wants the relocation of pg_largeobject to be supported via an SQL command, and at that point pg_upgrade would be modified to support that. It is unlikely pg_upgrade is going to be modified to support something that isn't supported at the SQL level. Of course, you can create a custom version of pg_upgrade to do that. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription + -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
