Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> Hmm. That assumes that nothing else than the WAL replay will read
> pages into shared buffers. I guess that's true at the moment, but it
> doesn't seem impossible that something like Florian's read-only queries
> on a stand by server would change that.
A general comment on this thread: the idea of putting any sort of
asynchronous behavior into WAL recovery gives me the willies.
Recovery is inherently one of the least-exercised parts of the system,
and it gets more so with each robustness improvement we make elsewhere.
Moreover, because it is fairly dumb, anything that does go wrong will
likely result in silent data corruption that may not be noted until much
later. Any bugs we introduce into recovery will be very hard to find
... and timing-dependent ones will be damn near impossible.
So in my mind the watchword has got to be KISS. If that means that
recovery isn't terribly speedy, so be it. I'd far rather get the
right answer slower.
Also, I have not seen anyone provide a very credible argument why
we should spend a lot of effort on optimizing a part of the system
that is so little-exercised. Don't tell me about warm standby
systems --- they are fine as long as recovery is at least as fast
as the original transactions, and no evidence has been provided to
suggest that it's not.
regards, tom lane
