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

From Daniel Gustafsson
Subject Re: WIP: WAL prefetch (another approach)
Date
Msg-id 5B6070FF-5869-4A84-88BC-2D04EDCDB858@yesql.se
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)
List pgsql-hackers
> On 10 May 2021, at 06:11, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 11:22 AM Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:

>> I tend to agree with the idea to revert it, perhaps a +0 on that, but if others argue it should be fixed in-place, I
wouldn’tcomplain about it. 
>
> Reverted.
>
> Note: eelpout may return a couple of failures because it's set up to
> run with recovery_prefetch=on (now an unknown GUC), and it'll be a few
> hours before I can access that machine to adjust that...
>
>> I very much encourage the idea of improving testing in this area and would be happy to try and help do so in the 15
cycle.
>
> Cool.  I'm going to try out some ideas.

Skimming this thread without all the context it's not entirely clear which
patch the CF entry relates to (I assume it's the one from April 7 based on
attached mail-id but there is a revert from May?), and the CF app and CF bot
are also in disagreement which is the latest one.

Could you post an updated version of the patch which is for review?

--
Daniel Gustafsson        https://vmware.com/




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: row filtering for logical replication
Next
From: Andrew Bille
Date:
Subject: Re: [Proposal] Global temporary tables