Re: WIP: WAL prefetch (another approach) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Steele
Subject Re: WIP: WAL prefetch (another approach)
Date
Msg-id 226b5950-7404-a51d-8dc7-53895b363a38@pgmasters.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: WIP: WAL prefetch (another approach)  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: WIP: WAL prefetch (another approach)  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 4/8/20 8:12 AM, Thomas Munro wrote:
> 
> Ok, so the following parts of this work have been committed:
> 
> b09ff536:  Simplify the effective_io_concurrency setting.
> fc34b0d9:  Introduce a maintenance_io_concurrency setting.
> 3985b600:  Support PrefetchBuffer() in recovery.
> d140f2f3:  Rationalize GetWalRcv{Write,Flush}RecPtr().
> 
> However, I didn't want to push the main patch into the tree at
> (literally) the last minute after doing such much work on it in the
> last few days, without more review from recovery code experts and some
> independent testing.  

I definitely think that was the right call.

> Judging by the comments made in this thread and
> elsewhere, I think the feature is in demand so I hope there is a way
> we could get it into 13 in the next couple of days, but I totally
> accept the release management team's prerogative on that.

That's up to the RMT, of course, but we did already have an extra week. 
Might be best to just get this in at the beginning of the PG14 cycle. 
FWIW, I do think the feature is really valuable.

Looks like you'll need to rebase, so I'll move this to the next CF in 
WoA state.

Regards,
-- 
-David
david@pgmasters.net



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michail Nikolaev
Date:
Subject: Re: Thoughts on "killed tuples" index hint bits support on standby
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Vacuum o/p with (full 1, parallel 0) option throwing an error