On 12/1/21, 6:48 PM, "Bharath Rupireddy" <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 for the overall idea of making the checkpoint faster. In fact, we
> here at our team have been thinking about this problem for a while. If
> there are a lot of files that checkpoint has to loop over and remove,
> IMO, that task can be delegated to someone else (maybe a background
> worker called background cleaner or bg cleaner, of course, we can have
> a GUC to enable or disable it). The checkpoint can just write some
Right. IMO it isn't optimal to have critical things like startup and
checkpointing depend on somewhat-unrelated tasks. I understand the
desire to avoid adding additional processes, and maybe it is a bigger
hammer than what is necessary to reduce the impact, but it seemed like
a natural solution for this problem. That being said, I'm all for
exploring other ways to handle this.
> Another idea could be to parallelize the checkpoint i.e. IIUC, the
> tasks that checkpoint do in CheckPointGuts are independent and if we
> have some counters like (how many snapshot/mapping files that the
> server generated)
Could you elaborate on this? Is your idea that the checkpointer would
create worker processes like autovacuum does?
Nathan
