Re: base backup client as auxiliary backend process - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: base backup client as auxiliary backend process
Date
Msg-id 20200204052857.GA43899@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: base backup client as auxiliary backend process  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 01:37:25AM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2020-01-23 15:49:37 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I assume that's probably discussed on the thread that is linked here,
>> but you shouldn't have to dig through the discussion thread to figure
>> out what the benefits of a change like this are.
>
> which I fully agree with.
>
> It's not at all clear to me that the potential downsides of this have
> been fully thought through. And even if they have, they've not been
> documented.

There is this, and please let me add a reference to another complaint
I had about this commit:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20200122055510.GH174860@paquier.xyz
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Dilip Kumar
Date:
Subject: Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of largein-progress transactions
Next
From: Dilip Kumar
Date:
Subject: Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of largein-progress transactions