On 2020/04/08 1:49, Fujii Masao wrote:
>
>
> On 2020/04/07 20:21, David Steele wrote:
>>
>> On 4/7/20 3:48 AM, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
>>> At Tue, 7 Apr 2020 12:15:00 +0900, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote in
>>>>>> This doesn't seem a bug, so I'm thinking to merge this to next *major*
>>>>>> version release, i.e., v13.
>>>>> Not a bug, perhaps, but I think we do consider back-patching
>>>>> performance problems. The rise in S3 usage has just exposed how poorly
>>>>> this performed code in high-latency environments.
>>>>
>>>> I understood the situation and am fine to back-patch that. But I'm not
>>>> sure
>>>> if it's fair to do that. Maybe we need to hear more opinions about
>>>> this?
>>>> OTOH, feature freeze for v13 is today, so what about committing the
>>>> patch
>>>> in v13 at first, and then doing the back-patch after hearing opinions
>>>> and
>>>> receiving many +1?
>>>
>>> +1 for commit only v13 today, then back-patch if people wants and/or
>>> accepts.
Please let me revisit this. Currently Grigory Smolkin, David Steele,
Michael Paquier and Pavel Suderevsky agree to the back-patch and
there has been no objection to that. So we should do the back-patch?
Or does anyone object to that?
I don't think that this is a feature bug because archive recovery works
fine from a functional perspective without this commit. OTOH,
I understand that, without the commit, there is complaint about that
archive recovery may be slow unnecessarily when archival storage is
located in remote, e.g., Amazon S3 and it takes a long time to fetch
the non-existent archive WAL file. So I'm ok to the back-patch unless
there is no strong objection to that.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
