On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 2:13 PM Bossart, Nathan <bossartn@amazon.com> wrote:
> Right. The latest patch for that approach [0] does just that. In
> fact, I think timeline files are the only files for which we need to
> force an immediate directory scan in the multiple-files-per-scan
> approach. For the keep-trying-the-next-file approach, we have to
> force a directory scan for anything but a regular WAL file that is
> ahead of our archiver state.
Yeah, that makes sense.
> Yeah, I would agree that the approaches basically converge into some
> form of "do fewer directory scans."
I guess we still have to pick one or the other, but I don't really
know how to do that, since both methods seem to be relatively fine,
and the scenarios where one is better than the other all feel a little
bit contrived. I guess if no clear consensus emerges in the next week
or so, I'll just pick one and commit it. Not quite sure yet how I'll
do the picking, but we seem to all agree that something is better than
nothing, so hopefully nobody will be too sad if I make an arbitrary
decision. And if some clear agreement emerges before then, even
better.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
