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+TgmoboazMqV9agYF-2F-_crbw9ogQ-e66OgMPP_bqPb7+a4g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: .ready and .done files considered harmful  ("Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com>)
Responses Re: .ready and .done files considered harmful
Re: .ready and .done files considered harmful
List pgsql-hackers
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.

Thanks,

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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade test for binary compatibility of core data types
Next
From: Bharath Rupireddy
Date:
Subject: how to distinguish between using the server as a standby or for executing a targeted recovery in PG 11?