On 1/28/20 8:02 PM, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > At Tue, 28 Jan 2020 19:13:32 +0300, Pavel Suderevsky >> Regading influence: issue is not about the large amount of WALs to apply >> but in searching for the non-existing WALs on the remote storage, each such >> search can take 5-10 seconds while obtaining existing WAL takes >> milliseconds. > > Wow. I didn't know of a file system that takes that much seconds to > trying non-existent files. Although I still think this is not a bug, > but avoiding that actually leads to a big win on such systems.
I have not tested this case but I can imagine it would be slow in practice. It's axiomatic that is hard to prove a negative. With multi-region replication it might well take some time to be sure that the file *really* doesn't exist and hasn't just been lost in a single region.
> After a thought, I think it's safe and effectively doable to let > XLogFileReadAnyTLI() refrain from trying WAL segments of too-high > TLIs. Some garbage archive files out of the range of a timeline might > be seen, for example, after reusing archive directory without clearing > files. However, fetching such garbages just to fail doesn't > contribute durability or reliablity at all, I think.
The patch seems sane, the trick will be testing it.
Pavel, do you have an environment where you can ensure this is a performance benefit?
