Back-patch is necessary? Re: Don't try fetching future segment of a TLI.

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>
To: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: psuderevsky(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Back-patch is necessary? Re: Don't try fetching future segment of a TLI.
Date: 2020-04-30 14:15:51
Message-ID: af0c5065-7807-c06d-29eb-e5b4121327ee@oss.nttdata.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers

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(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message 断桥烟雨三两月 2020-04-30 15:45:11 回复: report bug
Previous Message Tom Lane 2020-04-30 14:08:44 Re: BUG #16404: PostgreSQL 12.2: Database restore does not accept the EEST time zone.

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Melanie Plageman 2020-04-30 14:30:35 Re: Avoiding hash join batch explosions with extreme skew and weird stats
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2020-04-30 13:09:36 Re: WIP/PoC for parallel backup