Re: .ready and .done files considered harmful - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: .ready and .done files considered harmful
Date
Msg-id CA+Tgmobo2ugJq6P0RFBTevNtua9MiwovjyGZTQF84OwWOMH=_g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: .ready and .done files considered harmful  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: .ready and .done files considered harmful  ("Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com>)
Re: .ready and .done files considered harmful  ("Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 12:28 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 7:26 PM Bossart, Nathan <bossartn@amazon.com> wrote:
> > What do you think?
>
> I think this is committable. I also went back and looked at your
> previous proposal to do files in batches, and I think that's also
> committable. After some reflection, I think I have a slight preference
> for the batching approach.
> It seems like it might lend itself to archiving multiple files in a
> single invocation of the archive_command, and Alvaro just suggested it
> again apparently not having realized that it had been previously
> proposed by Andres, so I guess it has the further advantage of being
> the thing that several committers intuitively feel like we ought to be
> doing to solve this problem.
>
> So what I am inclined to do is commit
> v1-0001-Improve-performance-of-pgarch_readyXlog-with-many.patch.
> However, v6-0001-Do-fewer-directory-scans-of-archive_status.patch has
> perhaps evolved a bit more than the other one, so I thought I should
> first ask whether any of those changes have influenced your thinking
> about the batching approach and whether you want to make any updates
> to that patch first. I don't really see that this is needed, but I
> might be missing something.

Nathan, I just realized we never closed the loop on this. Do you have
any thoughts?

-- 
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: parallelizing the archiver
Next
From: Nitin Jadhav
Date:
Subject: Re: when the startup process doesn't (logging startup delays)