| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Speed up the removal of WAL files |
| Date: | 2018-09-30 12:53:41 |
| Message-ID: | 20180930125341.GF1763@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 12:50:03AM +0000, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> From: Michael Paquier [mailto:michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz]
>> Hm. durable_xx should remain a sane operation as an isolated call as you
>> still get the same problem if a crash happens before flushing the parent...
>> Fujii-san idea also has value to speed up the end of recovery but this costs
>> as well in extra recycling operations post promotion. If the checkpoint
>> was to happen a the end of recovery then that would be more logic, but we
>> don't for performance reasons. Let's continue to discuss on this thread.
>> If you have any patch to offer, let's also look at them.
>>
>> Anyway, as things are pretty much idle on this thread for a couple of days
>> and that we are still discussing potential ideas, I think that this entry
>> should be marked as returned with feedback. Thoughts?
>
> OK, I moved this to the next CF. Thank you for your cooperation.
The patch is still roughly with this status, so I am marking it as
returned with feedback.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-09-30 13:01:54 | Re: Sync ECPG scanner with core |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-09-30 12:51:30 | Re: Recovery performance of DROP DATABASE with many tablespaces |