Re: recovery modules - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Nathan Bossart
Subject Re: recovery modules
Date
Msg-id 20230128062729.GA2570237@nathanxps13
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: recovery modules  (Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: recovery modules
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 08:17:46PM -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 05:55:42PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2023-01-27 16:59:10 -0800, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>>> I think it would be weird for the archive module and
>>> recovery module interfaces to look so different, but if that's okay, I can
>>> change it.
>> 
>> I'm a bit sad about the archive module case - I wonder if we should change it
>> now, there can't be many users of it out there. And I think it's more likely
>> that we'll eventually want multiple archiving scripts to run concurrently -
>> which will be quite hard with the current interface (no private state).
> 
> I'm open to that.  IIUC it wouldn't require too many changes to existing
> archive modules, and if it gets us closer to batching or parallelism, it's
> probably worth doing sooner than later.

Here is a work-in-progress patch set for adjusting the archive modules
interface.  Is this roughly what you had in mind?

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Deadlock between logrep apply worker and tablesync worker
Next
From: Ankit Kumar Pandey
Date:
Subject: Re: Todo: Teach planner to evaluate multiple windows in the optimal order